[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42932-43297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07002]
[[Page 42931]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 96
May 16, 2024
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 42932]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730; FRL-9327-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV71
New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) that apply to the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) that apply to the SOCMI
(more commonly referred to as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or HON) and
Group I and II Polymers and Resins (P&R I and P&R II, respectively)
Industries. The EPA is finalizing decisions resulting from the Agency's
technology review of the HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP, and its
review of the NSPS that apply to the SOCMI. The EPA is also finalizing
amendments to the NSPS for equipment leaks of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in SOCMI based on its reconsideration of certain issues
raised in an administrative petition for reconsideration. Furthermore,
the EPA is finalizing emission standards for ethylene oxide (EtO)
emissions and chloroprene emissions after considering the results of a
risk assessment for the HON and for Neoprene Production processes
subject to the P&R I NESHAP, and is finalizing a fenceline monitoring
work practice standard for certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
Lastly, the EPA is finalizing the removal of exemptions from standards
for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), adding work
practice standards for such periods where appropriate, finalizing
standards for previously unregulated HAP, and adding provisions for
electronic reporting of performance test reports and periodic reports.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 15, 2024. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 15, 2024.
The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in the
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October
17, 2000 and November 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. 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.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 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 the HON and SOCMI
NSPS, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Mail Drop: Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-
4036; and email address: [email protected]. For questions about
the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Ms. Njeri Moeller,
Mail Drop: Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-1380; and email address: [email protected]. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Matthew Woody, Mail Drop: Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055,
RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1535; 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:
ACS American Community Survey
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model
dispersion modeling system
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCD air pollution control device
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BACT best available control technology
BLR basic liquid epoxy resins
BPT benefit per-ton
BSER best system of emissions reduction
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMPU chemical manufacturing process unit
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPI consumer price index
CRA Congressional Review Act
EAV equivalent annual value
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EFR external floating roof
EIS Emission Information System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPPU elastomer product process unit
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
EtO ethylene oxide
FTIR fourier transform infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
HQREL hazard quotient reference exposure level
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IFR internal floating roof
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISA Integrated Science Assessment
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/hr pound per hour
lb/yr pound per year
LDAR leak detection and repair
LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDL method detection limit
MERP monomer emission reduction project
MIR maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
MTVP maximum true vapor pressure
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NATTS National Air Toxic Trends Station
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOX nitrogen oxides
N2O nitrous oxide
[[Page 42933]]
NPDES national pollutant discharge elimination system
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OEL open-ended valves or lines
OGI optical gas imaging
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
P&R I Group I Polymers and Resins
P&R II Group II Polymers and Resins
PDF portable document format
PMPU polyether polyol manufacturing process unit
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PRD pressure relief device
PV present value
RACT reasonably available control technology
RDL representative detection limit
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
scmm standard cubic meter per minute
SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TAC Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TCI total capital investment
TOC total organic compounds
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRE total resource effectiveness
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WSR wet strength resins
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Background information. On April 25, 2023, the EPA proposed
amendments to the NSPS that apply to the SOCMI, and amendments to the
HON and P&R I and P&R II NESHAP. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is
available in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
available in the docket.
Organization of this document.
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the source categories and how did the previous
standards regulate emissions?
C. What changes did we propose in our April 25, 2023, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories NESHAP?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories NESHAP
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) and NSPS reviews for the SOCMI
source category pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)?
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), and 112(h) for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II
source categories?
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
E. What are the final amendments addressing the NSPS Subparts VV
and VVa reconsideration?
F. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP and NSPS?
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories?
A. Residual Risk Review for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production
Source Categories NESHAP
B. Technology Review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II Source
Categories NESHAP and NSPS Review for the SOCMI Source Category
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and (3) and
112(h) for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II Source Categories NESHAP
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
E. Amendments Addressing NSPS Subparts VV and VVa
Reconsideration
F. Other Amendments to the NESHAP and NSPS
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
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?
G. Children's Environmental Health
VI. 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
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. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The source categories that are the subject of this final action are
the SOCMI and various polymers and resins manufacturing source
categories. The SOCMI source category includes chemical manufacturing
processes producing commodity chemicals while the polymers and resins
manufacturing source categories covered in this action include
elastomers production processes and resin production processes that use
epichlorohydrin feedstocks (see sections I.B and II.B of this preamble
for detailed information about these source categories). The EPA has
previously promulgated maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for certain processes in the SOCMI source category in the HON
rulemaking at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subparts F,
G, and H. In 1994, the EPA finalized MACT standards in subparts F, G,
and
[[Page 42934]]
H for SOCMI processes (59 FR 19454),\1\ and the Agency completed a
residual risk and technology review (RTR) for these NESHAP in 2006 (71
FR 76603). In 1995, the EPA finalized MACT standards in the P&R II
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart W) for epoxy resin and non-nylon
polyamide resin manufacturing processes (60 FR 12670), and the Agency
completed a residual RTR for these standards in 2008 (73 FR 76220). In
1996, the EPA finalized MACT standards in the P&R I NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart U) for various elastomer manufacturing processes (61 FR
46906), and the Agency completed residual RTRs for these standards in
2008 and 2011 (73 FR 76220 and 76 FR 22566).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Around the same time, the EPA set MACT standards for
equipment leaks from certain non-SOCMI processes at chemical plants
regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart I (59 FR 19587).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also promulgated NSPS for certain processes in the
SOCMI source category. In 1983, the EPA finalized NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV) for equipment leaks of VOC in SOCMI (48 FR 48328). In 1990,
the EPA finalized NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts III and NNN) for VOC
from air oxidation unit processes and distillation operations (55 FR
26912 and 55 FR 26931). In 1993, the EPA finalized NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart RRR) for VOC from reactor processes (58 FR 45948). In 2007,
the EPA promulgated NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa) for VOC from
certain equipment leaks (72 FR 64883), which reflect the EPA's review
and revision of the standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
The statutory authority for this action is sections 111, 112,
301(a)(1), and 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires the EPA to promulgate standards of performance for new sources
in any category of stationary sources that the Administrator has listed
pursuant to 111(b)(1)(A). Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA provides that
these performance standards are to ``reflect[ ] the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated.'' We refer to this level of control as the
best system of emissions reduction or ``BSER.'' Section 111(b)(1)(B) of
the CAA requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 years, review and, if
appropriate, revise'' the NSPS.
For NESHAP, CAA section 112(d)(2) requires the EPA to establish
MACT standards for listed categories of major sources of HAP. Section
112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review standards promulgated
under CAA section 112, and revise them ``as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies),'' no less often than every eight years following
promulgation of those standards. This is referred to as a ``technology
review'' and is required for all standards established under CAA
section 112. Section 112(f) of the CAA requires the EPA to assess the
risk to public health remaining after the implementation of MACT
emission standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(2). If the MACT
standards for a source category do not provide ``an ample margin of
safety to protect public health,'' the EPA must also promulgate health-
based standards for that source category to further reduce risk from
HAP emissions.
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions
under the CAA. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA requires the
reconsideration of a rule only if the person raising an objection to
the rule can demonstrate that it was impracticable to raise such
objection during the period for public comment or if the grounds for
the objection arose after the comment period (but within the time
specified for judicial review), and if the objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.
The final new NSPS for SOCMI equipment leaks, air oxidation unit
processes, distillation operations, and reactor processes (i.e., NSPS
subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, respectively) are based on the
Agency's review of the current NSPS (subparts VVa, III, NNN, and RRR)
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), which requires that the EPA
review the NSPS every eight years and, if appropriate, revise them. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NSPS for equipment
leaks of VOC in SOCMI based on its reconsideration of certain aspects
of subparts VV and VVa that were raised in an administrative petition
which the Agency granted pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.
The final amendments to the HON (NESHAP subparts F, G, H, and I), the
P&R I NESHAP (NESHAP subpart U), and the P&R II NESHAP (NESHAP subpart
W) are based on the Agency's review of the current NESHAP (subparts F,
G, H, I, U, and W) pursuant to CAA sections 112(d) and (f).
Due to the development of the EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) inhalation unit risk estimate (URE) for chloroprene in
2010, the EPA conducted a second CAA section 112(f) risk review for the
SOCMI source category and Neoprene Production source category. In the
first step of the CAA section 112(f)(2) determination of risk
acceptability for this rulemaking, the use of the 2010 chloroprene risk
value resulted in the EPA identifying unacceptable cancer risk driven
by chloroprene emissions from the sole affected source producing
neoprene subject to the P&R I NESHAP.\2\ Consequently, the final
amendments to the P&R I NESHAP address the EPA review of additional
control technologies, beyond those analyzed in the technology review
conducted for the P&R I source category, to address the unacceptable
risk and achieve an ample margin of safety to protect public health at
that affected source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As discussed in section III.B of the proposal preamble (see
88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), chloroprene emissions from HON
processes do not on their own present unacceptable cancer risk from
the SOCMI source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in 2016, the EPA updated the IRIS inhalation URE for
EtO. In the first step of the CAA section 112(f)(2) determination of
risk acceptability for this rulemaking, the use of the updated 2016 EtO
risk value resulted in the EPA identifying unacceptable cancer risk
driven by EtO emissions from HON processes. Consequently, the final
amendments to the HON also address the EPA review of additional control
technologies, beyond those analyzed in the technology review conducted
for the SOCMI source category, to address the unacceptable risk and
achieve an ample margin of safety to protect public health at SOCMI and
P&R I affected sources.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action In Question
The most significant amendments that we are finalizing are
described briefly below. However, all of our final amendments,
including amendments to remove exemptions for periods of SSM, are
discussed in detail with rationale in section IV of this preamble or in
the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New
Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
[[Page 42935]]
a. HON
We are finalizing amendments to the HON for heat exchange systems,
process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks, wastewater, and
equipment leaks.
i. NESHAP Subpart F
As detailed in section II.B.1.a of this preamble, NESHAP
subpart F contains provisions to determine which chemical manufacturing
processes at a facility are subject to the HON, monitoring requirements
for HAP (i.e., HAP listed in Table 4 of NESHAP subpart F) that may leak
into cooling water from heat exchange systems, and requirements for
maintenance wastewater. For NESHAP subpart F, we are finalizing:
compliance dates for all of the HON requirements in this
action (see 40 CFR 63.100(k)(10) through (12); and section III.G of
this preamble).
the moving of all the definitions from NESHAP subparts G
and H (i.e., 40 CFR 63.111 and 40 CFR 63.161, respectively) into the
definition section of NESHAP subpart F (see 40 CFR 63.101; and sections
III.F and IV.F of this preamble).
a new definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' (for
equipment leaks, heat exchange systems, process vents, storage vessels,
and wastewater) (see 40 CFR 63.101; and sections III.A and IV.A of this
preamble).
new operating and monitoring requirements for flares (see
40 CFR 63.108; and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators
to demonstrate that process equipment does, or does not, meet the
definition of being ``in ethylene oxide service'' (see 40 CFR 63.109;
and sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble).
For heat exchange systems, we are finalizing:
requirements that owners or operators must use the
Modified El Paso Method and repair leaks of total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2
parts per million by volume (ppmv) or greater (see 40 CFR 63.104(g)
through (j); and sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
requirements for heat exchange systems in EtO service that
owners or operators must conduct more frequent leak monitoring (weekly
instead of quarterly) and repair leaks of total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv or greater
within 15 days from the sampling date (in lieu of the previous 45-day
repair requirement after receiving results of monitoring indicating a
leak in the HON), and delay of repair is not allowed unless the
equipment can be isolated such that it is no longer in EtO service (see
40 CFR 63.104(g)(6) and (h)(6); and sections III.A.1 and IV.A of this
preamble).
a provision allowing use of the previous leak monitoring
requirements for heat exchange systems at 40 CFR 63.104(b) in limited
instances in lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method for heat
exchange systems cooling process fluids that will remain in the cooling
water if a leak occurs (see 40 CFR 63.104(l); and sections III.B.1 and
IV.B of this preamble).
ii. NESHAP Subpart G
As detailed in section II.B.1.b of this preamble, NESHAP subpart G
contains requirements for process vents, storage vessels, transfer
racks, wastewater streams, and closed vent systems.
For process vents, we are finalizing:
the removal of the 50 ppmv and 0.005 standard cubic meter
per minute (scmm) Group 1 process vent thresholds from the Group 1
process vent definition, and instead we are requiring owners and
operators of process vents that emit greater than or equal to 1.0 pound
per hour (lb/hr) of total organic HAP to reduce emissions of organic
HAP using a flare meeting the operating and monitoring requirements for
flares in NESHAP subpart F; or reduce emissions of total organic HAP or
total organic compounds (TOC) by 98 percent by weight or to an exit
concentration of 20 ppmv, (see 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 CFR 63.113(a)(1)
and (2); and sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
the removal of the total resource effectiveness (TRE)
concept in its entirety (see 40 CFR 63.113(a)(4); and sections III.B.1
and IV.B of this preamble).
an emission standard of 0.054 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 3 percent oxygen (toxic equivalency basis) for
dioxins and furans from chlorinated process vents (see 40 CFR
63.113(a)(5); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
requirements that owners and operators must reduce
emissions of EtO from process vents in EtO service by either: (1)
Venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight, to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than 5
pound per year (lb/yr) for all combined process vents per chemical
manufacturing process unit (CMPU); or (2) venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a flare meeting the operating and monitoring
requirements for flares in NESHAP subpart F (see 40 CFR 63.113(j), 40
CFR 63.108, and 40 CFR 63.124; and sections III.A.1 and IV.A of this
preamble).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We are also removing the option to allow use of a design
evaluation in lieu of performance testing to demonstrate compliance
for controlling various emission sources in EtO service. In
addition, owners or operators that choose to control emissions with
a non-flare control device are required to conduct an initial
performance test on each control device in EtO service to verify
performance at the required level of control, and are required to
conduct periodic performance testing on non-flare control devices in
EtO service every 5 years (see 40 CFR 63.124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a work practice standard for maintenance vents requiring
that, prior to opening process equipment to the atmosphere, the
equipment must either: (1) Be drained and purged to a closed system so
that the hydrocarbon content is less than or equal to 10 percent of the
lower explosive limit (LEL); (2) be opened and vented to the atmosphere
only if the 10-percent LEL cannot be demonstrated and the pressure is
less than or equal to 5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), provided
there is no active purging of the equipment to the atmosphere until the
LEL criterion is met; (3) be opened when there is less than 50 lbs of
VOC that may be emitted to the atmosphere; or (4) for installing or
removing an equipment blind, depressurize the equipment to 2 psig or
less and maintain pressure of the equipment where purge gas enters the
equipment at or below 2 psig during the blind flange installation,
provided none of the other work practice standards can be met (see 40
CFR 63.113(k); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
requirements that owners and operators of process vents in
EtO service are allowed to use the maintenance vent work practice
standards; however, owners and operators are prohibited from releasing
more than 1.0 ton of EtO from all maintenance vents combined on a
facility basis in any consecutive 12-month period (see 40 CFR
63.113(k)(4); and sections III.A.1 and IV.A of this preamble).
For storage vessels, we are finalizing:
requirements that owners and operators must reduce
emissions of EtO from storage vessels in EtO service by either: (1)
Venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight or to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each storage vessel vent; or (2)
venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare meeting the
operating and monitoring requirements for flares in NESHAP subpart F
(see 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5), 40 CFR 63.108, and 40 CFR
[[Page 42936]]
63.124; and sections III.A.1 and IV.A of this preamble).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a work practice standard to allow storage vessels to be
vented to the atmosphere once a storage vessel degassing concentration
threshold is met (i.e., once a storage vessel degassing organic HAP
concentration of 5,000 ppmv as methane is met, or until the vapor space
concentration is less than 10 percent of the LEL) and all standing
liquid has been removed from the vessel to the extent practicable (see
40 CFR 63.119(a)(6); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
a definition for ``pressure vessel'' and removing the
exemption for ``pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere'' from the
definition of storage vessel (see 40 CFR 63.101); and requirements for
initial and annual performance testing of pressure vessels that are
considered Group 1 storage vessels using EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7 to demonstrate no detectable emissions (i.e., required
to meet a leak definition of 500 parts per million (ppm) at each point
on the pressure vessel where total organic HAP could potentially be
emitted) (see 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7); and sections III.C and IV.C of this
preamble).
requirements that all openings in an internal floating
roof (IFR) (except those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker
vents), rim space vents, leg sleeves, and deck drains) be equipped with
a deck cover; and that the deck cover be equipped with a gasket between
the cover and the deck (see 40 CFR 63.119(b)(5)(ix); and sections
III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
control requirements for guidepoles for all storage
vessels equipped with an IFR (see 40 CFR 63.119(b)(5)(x), (xi), and
(xii); and sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
a work practice standard that applies during periods of
planned routine maintenance of a control device, fuel gas system, or
process equipment that is normally used for compliance with the storage
vessel emissions control requirements; owners and operators are not
permitted to fill the storage vessel during these periods (such that
working losses are controlled and the vessel only emits HAP to the
atmosphere due to breathing losses for a limited amount of time) (see
40 CFR 63.119(e)(7); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
revisions to the Group 1 storage capacity criterion (for
storage vessels at existing sources) from between 75 cubic meters
(m\3\) and 151 m\3\ to between 38 m\3\ and 151 m\3\ (see Table 5 to
subpart G; and sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
revisions to the Group 1 stored-liquid maximum true vapor
pressure (MTVP) of total organic HAP threshold (for storage vessels at
existing and new sources) from greater than or equal to 13.1
kilopascals to greater than or equal to 6.9 kilopascals (see Tables 5
and 6 to subpart G; and sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
For transfer racks, we are finalizing:
removing the exemption for transfer operations that load
``at an operating pressure greater than 204.9 kilopascals'' from the
definition of transfer operation (see 40 CFR 63.101; and sections III.C
and IV.C of this preamble).
For wastewater streams, we are finalizing:
revisions to the Group 1 wastewater stream threshold to
include wastewater streams in EtO service (i.e., wastewater streams
with total annual average concentration of EtO greater than or equal to
1 parts per million by weight (ppmw) at any flow rate) (see 40 CFR
63.132(c)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(ii); and sections III.A and IV.A of this
preamble).
requirements prohibiting owners and operators from
injecting wastewater into or disposing of water through any heat
exchange system in a CMPU meeting the conditions of 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1)
through (3) if the water contains any amount of EtO, has been in
contact with any process stream containing EtO, or the water is
considered wastewater as defined in 40 CFR 63.101 (see 40 CFR
63.104(k); and sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble).
For closed vent systems, we are finalizing:
requirements that owners and operators may not bypass an
air pollution control device (APCD) at any time (see 40 CFR
63.114(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.127(d)(3), and 40 CFR 63.148(f)(4)), that a
bypass is a violation, and that owners and operators must estimate and
report the quantity of organic HAP released (see 40 CFR 63.118(a)(5),
40 CFR 63.130(a)(2)(iv), 40 CFR 63.130(b)(3), 40 CFR 63.130(d)(7), and
40 CFR 63.148(i)(3)(iii) and (j)(4); and sections III.C and IV.C of
this preamble).
iii. NESHAP Subparts H and I
As detailed in sections II.B.1.c and II.B.1.d of this preamble,
NESHAP subparts H and I contain requirements for equipment leaks. Also,
due to space limitations in NESHAP subpart F, we are finalizing
fenceline monitoring (i.e., monitoring along the perimeter of the
facility's property line) in NESHAP subpart H for all emission sources.
For equipment leaks and fenceline monitoring, we are finalizing:
requirements that all connectors in EtO service be
monitored monthly at a leak definition of 100 ppm with no skip period,
and delay of repair is not allowed unless the equipment can be isolated
such that it is no longer in EtO service (see 40 CFR 63.174(a)(3),
(b)(3)(vi), and (g)(3), and 40 CFR 63.171(f); and sections III.A and
IV.A of this preamble).
requirements that all gas/vapor and light liquid valves in
EtO service be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 100 ppm with
no skip period, and delay of repair is not allowed unless the equipment
can be isolated such that it is no longer in EtO service (see 40 CFR
63.168(b)(2)(iv) and (d)(5), and 40 CFR 63.171(f); and sections III.A
and IV.A of this preamble).
requirements that all light liquid pumps in EtO service be
monitored monthly at a leak definition of 500 ppm, and delay of repair
is not allowed unless the equipment can be isolated such that it is no
longer in EtO service (see 40 CFR 63.163(a)(1)(iii), (b)(2)(iv),
(c)(4), and (e)(7), and 40 CFR 63.171(f); and sections III.A and IV.A
of this preamble).
a work practice standard for pressure relief devices
(PRDs) that vent to the atmosphere that require owners and operators to
implement at least three prevention measures, perform root cause
analysis and corrective action in the event that a PRD does release
emissions directly to the atmosphere, and monitor PRDs using a system
that is capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of
each pressure release and of notifying operators that a pressure
release has occurred (see 40 CFR 63.165(e); and sections III.C and IV.C
of this preamble).
requirements that all surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers meet the requirements we are finalizing for process vents
(see 40 CFR 63.170(b); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
requirements that owners and operators may not bypass an
APCD at any time (see 40 CFR 63.114(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.127(d)(3), and 40
CFR 63.148(f)(4)), that a bypass is a violation, and that owners and
operators must estimate and report the quantity of organic HAP released
(see 40 CFR 63.118(a)(5), 40 CFR 63.130(a)(2)(iv), 40 CFR 63.130(b)(3),
40 CFR 63.130(d)(7), and 40 CFR 63.148(i)(3)(iii) and (j)(4); and
sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
fenceline monitoring work practice standards requiring
owners and operators to monitor for any of six
[[Page 42937]]
specific HAP (i.e., benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl
chloride, EtO, and chloroprene) if their affected source uses,
produces, stores, or emits any of them, and conduct root cause analysis
and corrective action upon exceeding annual average concentration
action levels set forth for each HAP (see 40 CFR 63.184; and sections
III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
b. P&R I NESHAP
As detailed in section II.B.2 of this preamble, the P&R I NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart U) generally follows and refers to the
requirements of the HON, with additional requirements for batch process
vents. We are finalizing amendments to the P&R I NESHAP for heat
exchange systems, process vents, storage vessels, wastewater, and
equipment leaks. For NESHAP subpart U, we are finalizing:
compliance dates for all of the requirements in this
action related to the P&R I NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.481(n) and (o); and
section III.G of this preamble).
new operating and monitoring requirements for flares (see
40 CFR 63.508; and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
the removal of the provisions to assert an affirmative
defense to civil penalties (see 40 CFR 63.480(j)(4); and sections III.D
and IV.D of this preamble).
the same fenceline monitoring requirements that we are
finalizing in Subpart H for HON sources.
sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators
of affected sources producing neoprene to demonstrate that process
equipment does, or does not, meet the definition of being ``in
chloroprene service'' (see 40 CFR 63.509; and sections III.A and IV.A
of this preamble).
For heat exchange systems, we are finalizing:
the same requirements (except for EtO standards) listed in
section I.A.2.a.i of this preamble that we are finalizing for heat
exchange systems subject to the HON to also apply to heat exchange
systems subject to the P&R I NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.502(n)(7); and
sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
For continuous front-end process vents, we are finalizing:
the requirement that owners and operators must reduce
emissions of chloroprene from continuous front-end process vents in
chloroprene service at affected sources producing neoprene by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control device
that reduces chloroprene by greater than or equal to 98 percent by
weight, to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or
to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents per elastomer
product process unit (EPPU) (see 40 CFR 63.485(y), and 40 CFR 63.510;
and sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We are also removing the option to allow use of a design
evaluation in lieu of performance testing to demonstrate compliance
for controlling various emission sources in chloroprene service. In
addition, owners or operators are required to conduct an initial
performance test on each non-flare control device in chloroprene
service to verify performance at the required level of control, and
are required to conduct periodic performance testing on non-flare
control devices in chloroprene service every 5 years (see 40 CFR
63.510).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the same requirements (except for EtO standards) listed in
section I.A.2.a.ii of this preamble that we are finalizing for process
vents subject to the HON to also apply to continuous front-end process
vents subject to the P&R I NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.482, 40 CFR
63.485(l)(6), (o)(6), (p)(5), and (x), 40 CFR 63.113(a)(1) and (2), 40
CFR 63.113(a)(4), 40 CFR 63.113(k), 40 CFR 63.114(a)(5)(v); and
sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
requirements that owners and operators of continuous
front-end process vents in chloroprene service are allowed to use the
maintenance vent work practice standards; however, owners and operators
are prohibited from releasing more than 1.0 ton of chloroprene from all
maintenance vents combined on a facility basis in any consecutive 12-
month period (see 40 CFR 63.485(z); and sections III.A and IV.A of this
preamble).
the same dioxins and furans emission standard that we are
finalizing for process vents subject to the HON of 0.054 ng/dscm at 3
percent oxygen (toxic equivalency basis) to also apply to chlorinated
continuous front-end process vents (see 40 CFR 63.485(x); and sections
III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
For batch front-end process vents, we are finalizing:
the removal of the annual organic HAP emissions mass flow
rate, cutoff flow rate, and annual average batch vent flow rate Group 1
process vent thresholds from the Group 1 batch front-end process vent
definition (these thresholds were previously determined on an
individual batch process vent basis). Instead, owners and operators of
batch front-end process vents that release total annual organic HAP
emissions greater than or equal to 4,536 kilograms per year (kg/yr)
(10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr)) from all batch front-end process vents
combined are required to reduce emissions of organic HAP from these
process vents using a flare meeting the operating and monitoring
requirements for flares; or reduce emissions of organic HAP or total
organic carbon (TOC) by 90 percent by weight (or to an exit
concentration of 20 ppmv if considered an ``aggregate batch vent
stream'' as defined by the rule) (see 40 CFR 63.482, 40 CFR
63.487(e)(1)(iv), 40 CFR 63.488(d)(2), (e)(4), (f)(2), and (g)(3); and
sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
the same chloroprene standards that we are finalizing for
continuous front-end process for batch front-end process vents at
affected sources producing neoprene (see 40 CFR 63.487(j); and sections
III.A and IV.A of this preamble).
the same work practice standards that we are finalizing
for maintenance vents as described for HON to the P&R I NESHAP (see 40
CFR 63.487(i); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
requirements that owners and operators of batch front-end
process vents in chloroprene service are allowed to use the maintenance
vent work practice standards; however, owners and operators are
prohibited from releasing more than 1.0 ton of chloroprene from all
maintenance vents combined on a facility basis in any consecutive 12-
month period (see 40 CFR 63.487(i)(4); and sections III.A and IV.A of
this preamble).
the same dioxins and furans emission standard that we are
finalizing for process vents subject to the HON of 0.054 ng/dscm at 3
percent oxygen (toxic equivalency basis) to also apply to chlorinated
batch front-end process vents (see 40 CFR 63.487(a)(3) and (b)(3); and
sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
For back-end process vents, we are finalizing:
a requirement that owners and operators reduce emissions
of chloroprene from back-end process vents in chloroprene service at
affected sources producing neoprene by venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a non-flare control device that reduces
chloroprene by greater than or equal to 98 percent by weight, to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than 5
lb/yr for all combined process vents (see 40 CFR 63.494(a)(7); and
sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble).
For storage vessels, we are finalizing:
the requirement that owners and operators reduce emissions
of chloroprene from storage vessels in chloroprene service at affected
sources producing neoprene by venting emissions through a closed-vent
system to a non-flare control device that reduces chloroprene by
greater than or equal to 98 percent by weight or to a
[[Page 42938]]
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each storage vessel vent (see 40 CFR
63.484(u) and 40 CFR 63.510; and sections III.A and IV.A of this
preamble).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the same requirements (except for EtO standards) listed in
section I.A.2.a.ii of this preamble that we are finalizing for storage
vessels subject to the HON except the requirements apply to storage
vessels subject to the P&R I NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.484(t); and sections
III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble).
For wastewater streams, we are finalizing:
the Group 1 wastewater stream threshold to include
wastewater streams in chloroprene service at affected sources producing
neoprene (i.e., wastewater streams with total annual average
concentration of chloroprene greater than or equal to 10 ppmw at any
flow rate) (see 40 CFR 63.501(a)(10)(iv); and sections III.A and IV.A
of this preamble).
requirements prohibiting owners and operators from
injecting wastewater into or disposing of water through any heat
exchange system in an EPPU if the water contains any amount of
chloroprene, has been in contact with any process stream containing
chloroprene, or the water is considered wastewater as defined in 40 CFR
63.482 (see 40 CFR 63.502(n)(8); and sections III.A and IV.A of this
preamble).
For equipment leaks and fenceline monitoring, we are finalizing:
the same requirements (except for EtO standards) listed in
section I.A.2.a.iii of this preamble that we are finalizing for
equipment leaks subject to the HON except the requirements apply to
equipment leaks subject to the P&R I NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.502(a)(1)
through (a)(6); and sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
the cross-reference in the P&R I NESHAP to the fenceline
monitoring work practice standards in the HON (see 40 CFR 63.502)
requiring owners and operators to monitor for any of six specific HAP
(i.e., benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride,
EtO, and chloroprene) if their affected source uses, produces, stores,
or emits any of them, and conduct root cause analysis and corrective
action upon exceeding annual average concentration action levels set
forth for each HAP (see sections III.B.1 and IV.B of this preamble),
plus a lower annual average concentration action level for chloroprene
applicable to neoprene production source category (see sections III.A
and IV.A of this preamble).
c. P&R II NESHAP
The most significant amendments that we are finalizing for the P&R
II NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart W) are requirements for heat
exchange systems (see 40 CFR 63.523(d) and 40 CFR 63.524(c); and
sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble) and requirements for owners
and operators of wet strength resins (WSR) sources to comply with both
the equipment leak standards in the HON and the HAP emissions
limitation for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater systems
(see 40 CFR 63.524(a)(3) and (b)(3); and sections III.C and IV.C of
this preamble). We are also finalizing the same dioxin and furan
emission standard of 0.054 ng/dscm at 3 percent oxygen (toxic
equivalency basis) for chlorinated process vents as in the HON and the
P&R I NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.523(e) (for process vents associated with
each existing, new, or reconstructed affected basic liquid epoxy resins
(BLR) source), 40 CFR 63.524(a)(3) (for process vents associated with
each existing affected WSR source), and 40 CFR 63.524(b)(3) (for
process vents associated with each new or reconstructed affected WSR
source); and see sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble).
d. NSPS Subparts III, NNN, and RRR
We are amending the applicability of NSPS subparts III, NNN, and
RRR so that they only apply to sources constructed, reconstructed, or
modified on or before April 25, 2023. Affected facilities that are
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 25, 2023, are
subject to the new NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa.
e. NSPS Subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa
Rather than comply with a TRE concept which is used in NSPS
subparts III, NNN, and RRR, we are finalizing in new NSPS subparts
IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa a requirement for owners and operators to reduce
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all vent streams of an
affected facility (i.e., SOCMI air oxidation unit processes,
distillation operations, and reactor processes for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification occurs after April 25, 2023) by 98
percent by weight or to a concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen, or combust the emissions in a flare
meeting the same operating and monitoring requirements for flares that
we are finalizing for flares subject to the HON. We are finalizing a
mass-based exemption criterion of 0.001 lb/hr TOC (for which emission
controls are not required) in new NSPS subparts IIIa and NNNa. We are
also not including a relief valve discharge exemption in the definition
of ``vent stream'' in new NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa; instead,
any relief valve discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a
violation of the emissions standard. In addition, we are finalizing in
new NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa the same work practice standards
for maintenance vents that we are finalizing for HON process vents, and
the same monitoring requirements that we are finalizing for HON process
vents for adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and regenerative
adsorbers that are regenerated offsite (see sections III.B.2 and IV.B
of this preamble).
f. NSPS Subpart VVa
We are amending certain aspects of NSPS subparts VV and VVa to
address issues raised in an administrative petition which the Agency
granted pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. In addition, we
are amending the applicability of the existing NSPS subpart VVa so that
it applies to sources constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
November 6, 2006, and on or before April 25, 2023. Affected facilities
that are constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 25, 2023,
are subject to the new NSPS subpart VVb.
g. NSPS Subpart VVb
We are finalizing in a new NSPS subpart VVb the same requirements
in NSPS subpart VVa plus a requirement that all gas/vapor and light
liquid valves be monitored quarterly at a leak definition of 100 ppm
and all connectors be monitored once every 12 months at a leak
definition of 500 ppm (see sections III.B.2 and IV.B of this preamble).
For each of these two additional requirements, we are also finalizing
skip periods for good performance.
3. Costs and Benefits
Pursuant to E.O. 12866, the EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, titled Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry (referred to as the RIA in this
document), is available in the docket, and is also briefly summarized
in section V of this preamble. The assessment of costs and benefits
described herein and in the RIA is
[[Page 42939]]
presented solely for the purposes of complying with E.O. 12866 and to
provide the public with a complete depiction of the impacts of this
final action. The EPA notes that analysis of costs and benefits in the
RIA is distinct from the determinations finalized in this action under
CAA sections 111 and 112, which are based on the statutory factors the
EPA is required to consider under those sections.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are the SOCMI source category (and whose facilities,
sources and processes we often refer to as ``HON facilities,'' ``HON
sources,'' and ``HON processes'' for purposes of the NESHAP) and
several Polymers and Resins Production source categories covered in the
P&R I and P&R II NESHAP (see section II.B of this preamble for detailed
information about the source categories).\7\ The North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for SOCMI facilities begins
with 325, for P&R I facilities is 325212, and for P&R II facilities is
325211. The list of NAICS codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this
final action is likely to affect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The P&R I NESHAP includes MACT standards for nine listed
elastomer production source categories (i.e., Butyl Rubber
Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene-
Propylene Elastomers Production, HypalonTM Production,
Neoprene Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber Production, and
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production). The P&R II NESHAP
includes MACT standards for two listed source categories that use
epichlorohydrin feedstock (Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon
Polyamides Production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As 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),
the SOCMI source category is any facility engaged in ``manufacturing
processes that produce one or more of the chemicals [listed] that
either: (1) Use an organic HAP as a reactant or (2) produce an organic
HAP as a product, co-product, by-product, or isolated intermediate.''
\8\ In the development of NESHAP for this source category, the EPA
considered emission sources associated with: equipment leaks (including
leaks from heat exchange systems), process vents, transfer racks,
storage vessels, and wastewater collection and treatment systems. The
elastomer production source categories in the P&R I NESHAP and resins
produced with epichlorohydrin feedstock in the P&R II NESHAP have many
similar emission sources with SOCMI sources and are discussed further
in section II.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The original list of chemicals is located in Appendix A
(beginning on page A-71) of EPA-450/3-91-030 dated July 1992.
Alternatively, the most recent list of chemicals is documented in
the HON applicability rule text at 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1) and (2). The
original list of organic HAPs for the SOCMI source category is
located in Table 3.1 of Section 3.0 of EPA-450/3-91-030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA Priority List (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, August 21, 1979)
included ``Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing'' \9\ as a source
category for which standards of performance were to be promulgated
under CAA section 111. In the development of NSPS subparts VVa, III,
NNN, and RRR for this source category, the EPA considered emission
sources associated with unit processes, storage and handling equipment,
fugitive emission sources, and secondary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For readability, we also refer to this as the SOCMI source
category for purposes of the NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP or NSPS. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of these
NESHAP and NSPS, please contact the appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
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/synthetic-organic-chemical-manufacturing-industry-organic-national,
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/group-i-polymers-and-resins-national-emission-standards-hazardous, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/epoxy-resins-production-and-non-nylon-polyamides-national-emission. Following publication in
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version
and key technical documents at these same websites.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by
July 15, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings brought to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
1. NESHAP
The statutory authority for this action related to NESHAP is
provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary
sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential
to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy or more, or 25 tpy or more
of any combination of HAP. For major sources,
[[Page 42940]]
these standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards and must
reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality
health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA
section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but
not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP
emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other
modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack,
storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.
The MACT standards may take the form of design, equipment, work
practice or operational standards where the EPA first determines either
that (1) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed
and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant, or that any
requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent
with law; or (2) the application of measurement methodology to a
particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. CAA section 112(h)(1)-(2).
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review,
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floors that were
established in earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Association of
Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA
may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is required to address regulatory
gaps, such as missing standards for listed air toxics known to be
emitted from the source category, and any new MACT standards must be
established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), or, in specific
circumstances, CAA sections 112(d)(4) or (h). Louisiana Environmental
Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health
remaining after application of the technology-based standards and
revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the MACT standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\10\ For more information on
the statutory authority for this rule, see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023.
Often, the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and the CAA section
112(f)(2) residual risk review are combined into a single rulemaking
action, commonly called a ``risk and technology review'' (RTR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA conducted a combined RTR for the HON in 2006, concluding
that there was no need to revise the HON under the provisions of either
CAA section 112(f) or 112(d)(6). As part of the residual risk review,
the EPA conducted a risk assessment and, based on the results of the
risk assessment, determined that the then-current level of control
called for by the existing MACT standards both reduced HAP emissions to
levels that presented an acceptable level of risk and provided an ample
margin of safety to protect public health (see 71 FR 76603, December
21, 2006 for additional details). In 2008, the EPA conducted a combined
RTR for four of the P&R I source categories (including the Polysulfide
Rubber Production, Ethylene-Propylene Elastomers Production, Butyl
Rubber Production, and Neoprene Production source categories) and all
P&R II source categories (Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon
Polyamides Production source categories). In 2011, the EPA completed
the combined RTR for the remaining five P&R I source categories
(Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Hypalon\TM\ Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production, and Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production). The EPA concluded
in these actions that there was no need to revise standards for any of
the nine P&R I source categories and two P&R II source categories under
the provisions of either CAA section 112(f) or 112(d)(6) (see 73 FR
76220, December 16, 2008 and 77 FR 22566, April 21, 2011 for additional
details).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We note that in the April 21, 2011, rulemaking (see 77 FR
22566), the EPA finalized amendments to eliminate the SSM exemption
in the P&R I NESHAP; however, for consistency with the SSM related
amendments that we are finalizing for the HON and the P&R II NESHAP,
we are also finalizing (as detailed in section IV.D of this
preamble) additional amendments to the P&R I NESHAP related to the
SSM exemption that were not addressed in the April 21, 2011, P&R I
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action constitutes another CAA section 112(d)(6) technology
review for the HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP. This action also
constitutes an updated CAA section 112(f) risk review based on new
information for the HON and for affected sources producing neoprene
subject to the P&R I NESHAP. We note that although there is no
statutory CAA obligation under CAA section 112(f) for the EPA to
conduct a second residual risk review of the HON or of standards for
affected sources producing neoprene subject to the P&R I NESHAP, the
EPA retains discretion to revisit its residual risk reviews where the
Agency deems that to be warranted. See, e.g., Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v.
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
[[Page 42941]]
515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983); Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for
Sterilization Facilities; Final Decision, 71 FR 17712, 17715 col. 1
(April 7, 2006) (asserting authority, in residual risk review for EtO,
for EPA ``to revisit (and revise, if necessary) any rulemaking if there
is sufficient evidence that changes within the affected industry or
significant improvements to science suggests the public is exposed to
significant increases in risk as compared to the risk assessment
prepared for the rulemaking (e.g., CAA section 301).'').
Here, the specific changes to health information related to certain
pollutants emitted by these unique categories led us to determine that
it is appropriate, in this case, to conduct these second residual risk
reviews under CAA section 112(f). In particular, the EPA is concerned
about the cancer risks posed by the SOCMI source category due to the
EPA's 2016 updated IRIS inhalation URE for EtO, which shows EtO to be
significantly more toxic than previously known.\12\ This updated URE
was not available in 2006, when the EPA conducted its last RTR, but if
this URE had been available, the EPA would almost undoubtedly have
reached different conclusions about risk acceptability and the need to
modify the standards to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Similarly, for chloroprene, when the EPA conducted the
first residual risk assessment for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production
source categories, there was no inhalation URE for chloroprene.
Therefore, in those risk reviews, the EPA attributed no cancer risk to
chloroprene. The EPA concluded development of the IRIS inhalation URE
for chloroprene in 2010. That URE allows us to assess, for the first
time, the cancer risks posed by chloroprene. Had the EPA had the
benefit of this new URE at the time it conducted the 2006 and 2008
RTRs, the URE would almost undoubtedly have impacted our conclusions
about risk acceptability and the P&R I standards' provision of an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Instead, we are conducting
that analysis in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. EPA. Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Ethylene Oxide (CASRN 75-21-8) In Support of Summary Information on
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). December 2016. EPA/
635/R-16/350Fa. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/1025tr.pdf. See also, 87 FR
77985 (Dec. 21, 2022), Reconsideration of the 2020 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
action; reconsideration of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure our standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health following the new IRIS inhalation UREs for EtO
and chloroprene, we are exercising our discretion and conducting risk
assessments in this action for HON sources and for affected sources
producing neoprene subject to the P&R I NESHAP. Finally, we note that
on September 15, 2021, the EPA partially granted a citizen
administrative petition requesting that the EPA conduct a second
residual risk review under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the HON, stating
our intent to conduct a human health risk assessment concurrently with
the section 112(d)(6) review.\13\ Likewise, on March 4, 2022, the EPA
partially granted another citizen administrative petition requesting
that the EPA also conduct a second residual risk review under CAA
section 112(f) for the Neoprene Production source category in the P&R I
NESHAP, stating that we intend to conduct a human health risk
assessment concurrently with the section 112(d)(6) review.\14\ This
final rulemaking is partly undertaken in response to those citizen
administrative petitions. In sum, even though we do not have a
mandatory duty to conduct repeated residual risk reviews under CAA
section 112(f)(2), we have the authority to revisit any rulemaking if
there is: (1) Significant new scientific information suggesting the
public is exposed to higher risks from facilities subject to the HON
and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP than previously realized, as compared
to the previous risk assessments prepared for earlier rulemakings, or
(2) sufficient evidence that changes within the affected industry are
exposing the public to new risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See letter dated September 15, 2021, from Joseph Goffman to
Kathleen Riley, Emma Cheuse, and Adam Kron (see Docket Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0047).
\14\ See letter dated March 4, 2022, from Joseph Goffman to Emma
Cheuse, Deena Tumeh, Michelle Mabson, Maryum Jordan, and Dorian
Spence (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NSPS
The EPA's authority for the final NSPS rules is CAA section 111,
which governs the establishment of standards of performance for
stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source
performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the
scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which
standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards,
and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in
establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' NSPS. However, the
Administrator need not review any such standard if the ``Administrator
determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily
available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. When
conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has
the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or
emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.
In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
BSER which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction
and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of performance'' in CAA section
111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to determine both the BSER for
the regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must
then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of
performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA
section 111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate ``a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or
enforcing a standard of performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when
the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit
or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement
methodology for the particular class of sources. CAA section 111(b)(5)
precludes the EPA from prescribing a particular technological system
that must be used
[[Page 42942]]
to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can select
any measure or combination of measures that will achieve the standard.
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards.
In the development of NSPS for the SOCMI source category, the EPA
considered emission sources associated with unit processes, storage and
handling equipment, fugitive emission sources, and secondary sources.
In 1983, the EPA promulgated NSPS for VOC from equipment leaks in SOCMI
(40 CFR part 60, subpart VV). In 1990, the EPA promulgated NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subparts III and NNN) for VOC from air oxidation unit
processes and distillation operations in the SOCMI (55 FR 26912 and 55
FR 26931). In 1993, the EPA promulgated NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
RRR) for VOC from reactor processes in the SOCMI (58 FR 45948). In
2007, based on its review of NSPS subpart VV, the EPA promulgated
certain amendments to NSPS subpart VV and new NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart VVa) for VOC from certain equipment leaks in the SOCMI (72 FR
64883). This final action presents the required CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review
of the NSPS for the air oxidation unit processes (subpart III),
distillation operations (subpart NNN), reactor processes (subpart RRR),
and equipment leaks (subpart VVa).
3. Petition for Reconsideration
In addition to the final action under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
described above, this action includes final amendments to the NSPS
subparts VV and VVa (NSPS for VOC from equipment leaks in SOCMI) based
on its reconsideration of certain aspects of these NSPS subparts that
were raised in an administrative petition which the Agency granted
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. In January 2008, the EPA
received one petition for reconsideration of the NSPS for VOC from
equipment leaks in SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and VVa) and the
NSPS for equipment leaks in petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60,
subparts GGG and GGGa) pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) from the
following petitioners: American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum
Institute (API), and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
(now the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers). A copy of the
petition and subsequent EPA correspondence granting reconsideration is
provided in the docket for this rulemaking (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730). The petitioners primarily requested that the EPA reconsider
four provisions in those rules: (1) The clarification of the definition
of process unit in subparts VV, VVa, GGG, and GGGa; (2) the assignment
of shared storage vessels to specific process units in subparts VV,
VVa, GGG, and GGGa; (3) the monitoring of connectors in subpart VVa;
and (4) the definition of capital expenditure in subpart VVa.\15\ The
rationale for this request is provided in the petition. The petitioners
also requested that the EPA stay the effectiveness of these provisions
of the rule pending resolution of their petition for reconsideration.
On March 4, 2008, the EPA sent a letter to the petitioners informing
them that the EPA was granting their request for reconsideration on
issues (2) through (4) above. The letter also indicated that the EPA
was not taking action on the first issue related to the definition of
process unit. Finally, the letter indicated that the EPA was granting a
90-day stay of the provisions of the rules under reconsideration (see
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B)), as well as the clarification of the
definition of process unit, because of its reliance upon the new
provision on the allocation of shared storage vessels. On June 2, 2008,
the EPA published three actions in the Federal Register relative to
extending the 90-day stay. Specifically, the EPA published a direct
final rule (73 FR 31372) and a parallel proposal (73 FR 31416) in the
Federal Register to extend the stay until we took final action on the
issues of which the EPA granted reconsideration. Under the direct final
rule, the stay would take effect 30 days after the close of the comment
period on the proposed stay if no adverse comments were received. The
third notice published that same day was an interim final rule
extending the 90-day stay at the time for an additional 60 days so that
the stay would not expire before the direct final rule could take
effect (73 FR 31376). The EPA did not receive adverse comments on the
proposed stay and, as a result, the stay became effective August 1,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Note that this final action does not respond to the
petition for reconsideration of NSPS subparts GGG and GGGa, as the
EPA is not reviewing those subparts in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the three June 2, 2008 actions, the EPA indicated that it would
be publishing a Federal Register notice in response to the petition;
this action constitutes such notice and formally responds to the issues
raised in the petition with respect to NSPS subparts VV and VVa. This
final action presents the EPA's revisions to the NSPS for VOC from
equipment leaks in SOCMI based on the EPA's reconsideration of issues
(2) through (4) in the petition. We are also finalizing amendments that
address the stay on issue (1) in the petition. See sections III.E and
IV.E of this preamble for details about these final amendments.
B. What are the source categories and how did the previous standards
regulate emissions?
The source categories that are the subject of this final action are
the SOCMI source category subject to the HON and 11 Polymers and Resins
Production source categories subject to the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP.
This final action also addresses equipment leaks in the SOCMI and SOCMI
air oxidation unit processes, distillation operations, and reactor
processes. The NESHAP and NSPS included in this action that regulate
emission sources from the SOCMI and Polymers and Resins Production
source categories are described below.
1. HON
The sources affected by the HON include heat exchange systems and
maintenance wastewater located at SOCMI facilities that are regulated
under NESHAP subpart F; process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks,
and wastewater streams located at SOCMI facilities that are regulated
under NESHAP subpart G; equipment leaks associated with SOCMI processes
regulated under NESHAP subpart H; and equipment leaks from certain non-
SOCMI processes at chemical plants regulated under NESHAP subpart I. As
[[Page 42943]]
previously mentioned, these four NESHAP are more commonly referred
together as the HON.
In general, the HON applies to CMPUs that: (1) Produce one of the
listed SOCMI chemicals,\16\ and (2) either use as a reactant or produce
a listed organic HAP in the process. A CMPU means the equipment
assembled and connected by pipes or ducts to process raw materials and
to manufacture an intended product. A CMPU consists of more than one
unit operation. A CMPU includes air oxidation reactors and their
associated product separators and recovery devices; reactors and their
associated product separators and recovery devices; distillation units
and their associated distillate receivers and recovery devices;
associated unit operations; associated recovery devices; and any feed,
intermediate and product storage vessels, product transfer racks, and
connected ducts and piping. A CMPU includes pumps, compressors,
agitators, PRDs, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines (OEL), valves, connectors, instrumentation systems, and control
devices or systems. A CMPU is identified by its primary product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Table 1 to NESHAP subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. NESHAP Subpart F
NESHAP subpart F contains provisions to determine which chemical
manufacturing processes at a SOCMI facility are subject to the HON.
Table 1 of NESHAP subpart F contains a list of SOCMI chemicals, and
Table 2 of NESHAP subpart F contains a list of organic HAP regulated by
the HON. In general, if a process both: (1) Produces one of the listed
SOCMI chemicals and (2) either uses as a reactant or produces a listed
organic HAP in the process, then that SOCMI process is subject to the
HON. Details on how to determine which emission sources (i.e., heat
exchange systems, process vents, storage vessels, transfer racks,
wastewater, and equipment leaks) are part of a chemical manufacturing
process are also contained in NESHAP subpart F. NESHAP subpart F also
contains monitoring requirements for HAP (i.e., HAP listed in Table 4
of NESHAP subpart F) that may leak into cooling water from heat
exchange systems. Additionally, NESHAP subpart F requires sources to
prepare a description of procedures for managing maintenance wastewater
as part of a SSM plan.
b. NESHAP Subpart G
NESHAP subpart G contains the standards for process vents, transfer
racks, storage vessels, and wastewater at SOCMI facilities; it also
includes emissions averaging provisions. NESHAP subpart G provides an
equation representing a site-specific allowable overall emission limit
for the combination of all emission sources subject to the HON at a
SOCMI facility. Existing sources must demonstrate compliance using one
of two approaches: the point-by-point compliance approach or the
emissions averaging approach. New sources are not allowed to use
emissions averaging, but rather must demonstrate compliance using the
point-by-point approach. Under the point-by-point approach, the owner
or operator would apply control to each Group 1 emission source. A
Group 1 emission source is a point which meets the control
applicability criteria, and the owner or operator must reduce emissions
to specified levels; whereas a Group 2 emission source is one that does
not meet the criteria and no additional emission reduction is required.
Under the emissions averaging approach, an owner or operator may elect
to control different groups of emission sources to different levels
than specified by the point-by-point approach, as long as the overall
emissions do not exceed the overall allowable emission level. For
example, an owner or operator can choose not to control a Group 1
emission source (or to control the emission source with a less
effective control technique) if the owner or operator over-controls
another emission source. For the point-by-point approach, NESHAP
subpart G contains the following standards:
Group 1 process vents must reduce emissions of organic HAP
using a flare meeting 40 CFR 63.11(b); reduce emissions of total
organic HAP or TOC by 98 percent by weight or to an exit concentration
of 20 ppmv; \17\ or achieve and maintain a TRE index value \18\ greater
than 1.0.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The phrase ``whichever is less stringent'' was originally
used as part of this NESHAP standard; however, we have determined
the phrase does not serve any meaningful purpose and are removing it
in this final action. For specific details about this editorial
correction, refer to section 4.3 of the document titled Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
\18\ See section III.C.3.a of the preamble to the proposed rule
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a description of the TRE index
value and how the concept is currently used in the HON.
\19\ Halogenated vent streams (as defined in NESHAP subpart G)
from Group 1 process vents may not be vented to a flare and must
reduce the overall emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens by 99
percent (or 95 percent for control devices installed prior to
December 31, 1992) or reduce the outlet mass emission rate of total
hydrogen halides and halogens to less than 0.45 kg/hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 transfer racks must reduce emissions of total
organic HAP by 98 percent by weight or to an exit concentration of 20
ppmv; \20\ or reduce emissions of organic HAP using a flare meeting 40
CFR 63.11(b), using a vapor balancing system, or by routing emissions
to a fuel gas system or to a process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See footnote 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 storage vessels must reduce emissions of organic
HAP using a fixed roof tank equipped with an IFR; using an external
floating roof (EFR); using an EFR tank converted to a fixed roof tank
equipped with an IFR; by routing emissions to a fuel gas system or to a
process; or reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95 percent by weight
using a closed vent system (i.e., vapor collection system) and control
device, or combination of control devices (or reduce emissions of
organic HAP by 90 percent by weight using a closed vent system and
control device if the control device was installed before December 31,
1992).
Group 1 process wastewater streams and equipment managing
such streams at both new and existing sources must meet control
requirements for: (1) Waste management units including wastewater
tanks, surface impoundments, containers, individual drain systems, and
oil-water separators; (2) treatment processes including the design
steam stripper, biological treatment units, or other treatment devices;
and (3) closed vent systems and control devices such as flares,
catalytic incinerators, etc. Existing sources are not required to meet
control requirements if Group 1 process wastewater streams are included
in a 1 megagram per year source-wide exemption allowed by NESHAP
subpart G.
In general, Group 2 emission sources are not required to
apply any additional emission controls (provided they remain below
Group 1 thresholds); however, they are subject to certain monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that they were
correctly determined to be Group 2 and that they remain Group 2.
c. NESHAP Subpart H
NESHAP subpart H contains the standard for equipment leaks at SOCMI
facilities, including leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions and
other control requirements. Equipment regulated includes pumps,
compressors, agitators, PRDs, sampling connection
[[Page 42944]]
systems, OEL, valves, connectors, surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers, and instrumentation systems in organic HAP service. A piece
of equipment is in organic HAP service if it contains or contacts a
fluid that is at least 5 percent by weight organic HAP. Depending on
the type of equipment, the standards require either periodic monitoring
for and repair of leaks, the use of specified equipment to minimize
leaks, or specified work practices. Monitoring for leaks must be
conducted using EPA Method 21 in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 or
other approved equivalent monitoring techniques.
d. NESHAP Subpart I
NESHAP subpart I provides the applicability criteria for certain
non-SOCMI processes subject to the negotiated regulation for equipment
leaks. Regulated equipment is the same as that for NESHAP subpart H.
2. P&R I NESHAP
The P&R I NESHAP generally follows and refers to the requirements
of the HON, with additional requirements for batch process vents.
Generally, the P&R I NESHAP applies to EPPUs and associated equipment.
Similar to a CMPU in the HON, an EPPU means a collection of equipment
assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work used to process raw
materials and manufacture elastomer product. The EPPU includes unit
operations, recovery operations, process vents, storage vessels, and
equipment that are covered by equipment leak standards and produce one
of the elastomer types listed as an elastomer product, including: butyl
rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, ethylene propylene rubber, halobutyl
rubber, HypalonTM, neoprene, nitrile butadiene latex,
nitrile butadiene rubber, polybutadiene rubber/styrene butadiene rubber
by solution, polysulfide rubber, styrene butadiene latex, and styrene
butadiene rubber by emulsion. An EPPU consists of more than one unit
operation. An EPPU includes, as ``equipment,'' pumps, compressors,
agitators, PRDs, sampling connection systems, OEL, valves, connectors,
surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, instrumentation systems, and
control devices or systems.
The emissions sources affected by the P&R I NESHAP include heat
exchange systems and maintenance wastewater at P&R I facilities
regulated under NESHAP subpart F; storage vessels, transfer racks, and
wastewater streams at P&R I facilities regulated under NESHAP subpart
G; and equipment leaks at P&R I facilities regulated under NESHAP
subpart H. Process vents are also regulated emission sources but,
unlike the HON, these emissions sources are subdivided into front and
back-end process vents in the P&R I NESHAP. The front-end are unit
operations prior to and including the stripping operations. These are
further subdivided into continuous front-end process vents regulated
under NESHAP subpart G and batch front-end process vents that are
regulated according to the requirements within the P&R I NESHAP. Back-
end unit operations include filtering, coagulation, blending,
concentration, drying, separating, and other finishing operations, as
well as latex and crumb storage. The requirements for back-end process
vents are not subcategorized into batch or continuous and are also
found within the P&R I NESHAP.
3. P&R II NESHAP
The P&R II NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from two source
categories, Epoxy Resins Production (also referred to as BLR) and Non-
Nylon Polyamides Production (also referred to as WSR). The P&R II
NESHAP takes a different regulatory and format approach from the P&R I
NESHAP but still refers to HON provisions for a portion of the
standards. BLR are resins made by reacting epichlorohydrin and
bisphenol A to form diglycidyl ether of bisphenol-A. WSR are polyamide/
epichlorohydrin condensates which are used to increase the tensile
strength of paper products.
The emission sources affected by the P&R II NESHAP are all HAP
emission points within a facility related to the production of BLR or
WSR. These emission points include process vents, storage tanks,
wastewater systems, and equipment leaks. Equipment includes connectors,
pumps, compressors, agitators, PRDs, sampling connection systems, OEL,
and instrumentation system in organic HAP service. Equipment leaks are
regulated under the HON (i.e., NESHAP subpart H).
Process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater systems combined are
regulated according to a production-based emission rate (e.g., pounds
HAP per million pounds BLR or WSR produced). For existing sources, the
rate shall not exceed 130 pounds per 1 million pounds of BLR produced
and 10 pounds per 1 million pounds of WSR produced. For new sources,
BLR requires all uncontrolled emissions to achieve 98 percent reduction
or limits the total emissions to 5,000 pounds of HAP per year. New WSR
sources are limited to 7 pounds of HAP per 1 million pounds of WSR
produced.
4. NSPS Subpart VVa
NSPS subpart VVa contains VOC standards for leaks from equipment
within a process unit for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after November 7, 2006. Under NSPS subpart VVa,
equipment means each pump, compressor, PRD, sampling connection system,
OEL, valve, and flange or other connector in VOC service and any
devices or systems required by the NSPS. Process units consist of
components assembled to produce, as intermediate or final products, one
or more of the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 60.489. A process unit can
operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed or raw materials
and sufficient storage facilities for the product. The standards in
NSPS subpart VVa include LDAR provisions and other control
requirements. A piece of equipment is in VOC service if it contains or
contacts a fluid that is at least 10 percent by weight VOC. Depending
on the type of equipment, the standards require either periodic
monitoring for and repair of leaks, the use of specified equipment to
minimize leaks, or specified work practices. Monitoring for leaks must
be conducted using EPA Method 21 in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 or
other approved equivalent monitoring techniques.
5. NSPS Subpart III
NSPS subpart III regulates VOC emissions from SOCMI air oxidation
reactors for which construction, reconstruction, or modification
commenced after October 21, 1983. For the purpose of NSPS subpart III,
air oxidation reactors are devices or process vessels in which one or
more organic reactants are combined with air, or a combination of air
and oxygen, to produce one or more organic compounds. The affected
facility is designated as a single air oxidation reactor with its own
individual recovery system (if any) or the combination of two or more
air oxidation reactors and the common recovery system they share that
produces one or more of the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 60.617 as a
product, co-product, by-product, or intermediate. The BSER for reducing
VOC emissions from SOCMI air oxidation units was identified as
combustion (e.g., incineration, flares) and the standard of performance
requires owners and operators of an affected facility to reduce
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) by 98 percent by weight or
to a concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry basis corrected to
[[Page 42945]]
3 percent oxygen; \21\ combust the emissions in a flare meeting 40 CFR
60.18(b); or maintain a TRE index value \22\ greater than 1.0 without
use of VOC emission control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The phrase ``whichever is less stringent'' was originally
used as part of this NSPS standard; however, we have determined the
phrase does not serve any meaningful purpose and are removing it in
this final action. For specific details about this editorial
correction, refer to section 5.1 of the document titled Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
\22\ See section III.C.3.b of the preamble to the proposed rule
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a description of the TRE index
value and how the concept is used in NSPS subpart III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NSPS Subpart NNN
NSPS subpart NNN regulates VOC emissions from SOCMI distillation
operations for which construction, reconstruction, or modification
commenced after December 30, 1983. For the purpose of NSPS subpart NNN,
distillation operations are operations separating one or more feed
stream(s) into two or more exit stream(s), each exit stream having
component concentrations different from those in the feed stream(s);
and the separation is achieved by the redistribution of the components
between the liquid and vapor-phase as they approach equilibrium within
a distillation unit. The affected facility is designated as a single
distillation column with its own individual recovery system (if any) or
the combination of two or more distillation columns and the common
recovery system they share that is part of a process unit that produces
any of the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 60.667 as a product, co-product,
by-product, or intermediate. The BSER for reducing VOC emissions from
SOCMI distillation operations was identified as combustion (e.g.,
incineration, flares) and the standard of performance requires owners
and operators of an affected facility to reduce emissions of TOC (minus
methane and ethane) by 98 percent by weight or to a concentration of 20
ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen; \23\ combust the
emissions in a flare meeting 40 CFR 60.18(b); or maintain a TRE index
value \24\ greater than 1.0 without use of VOC emission control
devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See footnote 21.
\24\ See section III.C.3.b of the preamble to the proposed rule
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a description of the TRE index
value and how the concept is used in NSPS subpart NNN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. NSPS Subpart RRR
NSPS subpart RRR regulates VOC emissions from SOCMI reactor
processes for which construction, reconstruction, or modification
commenced after June 29, 1990. For the purpose of NSPS subpart RRR,
reactor processes are unit operations in which one or more chemicals,
or reactants other than air, are combined or decomposed in such a way
that their molecular structures are altered and one or more new organic
compounds are formed. The affected facility is designated as a single
reactor process with its own individual recovery system (if any) or the
combination of two or more reactor processes and the common recovery
system they share that is part of a process unit that produces any of
the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 60.707 as a product, co-product, by-
product, or intermediate. The BSER for reducing VOC emissions from
SOCMI reactor processes was identified as combustion (e.g.,
incineration, flares) and the standard of performance requires owners
and operators of an affected facility to reduce emissions of TOC (minus
methane and ethane) by 98 percent by weight or to a concentration of 20
ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen; \25\ combust the
emissions in a flare meeting 40 CFR 60.18(b); or maintain a TRE index
value \26\ greater than 1.0 without use of VOC emission control
devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See footnote 21.
\26\ See section III.C.3.b of the preamble to the proposed rule
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a description of the TRE index
value and how the concept is used in NSPS subpart RRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What changes did we propose in our April 25, 2023, proposal?
1. NESHAP
a. Proposed Actions Related to CAA Section 112(f) Risk Assessment
To reduce risk from the SOCMI source category to an acceptable
level, we proposed under CAA section 112(f) to require (in the HON)
control of EtO emissions from: (1) Process vents, (2) storage vessels,
(3) equipment leaks, (4) heat exchange systems, and (5) wastewater ``in
ethylene oxide service'' (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023, for our
proposed definition of ``in ethylene oxide service''). We also proposed
requirements to reduce EtO emissions from maintenance vents, flares,
and PRDs.
For process vents and storage vessels in EtO service, we
proposed owners and operators reduce emissions of EtO by either: (1)
Venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight, to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent and storage
vessel, or to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents; or (2)
venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare meeting the
proposed operating and monitoring requirements for flares in NESHAP
subpart F.
For equipment leaks in EtO service, we proposed the
following combined requirements: monitoring of connectors in gas/vapor
and light liquid service at a leak definition of 100 ppm on a monthly
basis with no reduction in monitoring frequency and no delay of repair;
light liquid pump monitoring at a leak definition of 500 ppm monthly;
and gas/vapor and light liquid valve monitoring at a leak definition of
100 ppm monthly with no reduction in monitoring frequency and no delay
of repair.
For heat exchange systems in EtO service, we proposed to
require owners or operators to conduct more frequent leak monitoring
(weekly instead of quarterly) and repair leaks within 15 days from the
sampling date (in lieu of the current 45-day repair requirement after
receiving results of monitoring indicating a leak), and delay of repair
would not be allowed.
For wastewater in EtO service, we proposed to revise the
Group 1 wastewater stream threshold for sources to include wastewater
streams in EtO service.
For maintenance vents, we proposed a requirement that
owners and operators cannot release more than 1.0 ton of EtO from all
maintenance vents combined in any consecutive 12-month period.
For flares, we proposed a requirement that owners and
operators can send no more than 20 tons of EtO to all of their flares
combined from all HON emission sources at a facility in any consecutive
12-month period.
For PRDs in EtO service, we proposed that any atmospheric
PRD release is a violation of the standard.
To reduce risk from the Neoprene Production source category to an
acceptable level, we proposed under CAA section 112(f) to require (in
the P&R I NESHAP) control of chloroprene for: (1) Process vents, (2)
storage vessels, and (3) wastewater ``in chloroprene service'' (see 88
FR 25080, April 25, 2023, for our proposed definition of ``in
chloroprene service''). We also proposed requirements to reduce
chloroprene emissions from maintenance vents and PRDs.
For process vents and storage vessels in chloroprene
service, we
[[Page 42946]]
proposed owners and operators reduce emissions of chloroprene by
venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces chloroprene by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight,
to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent and storage
vessel, or to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents.
For wastewater in chloroprene service, we proposed to
revise the Group 1 wastewater stream threshold for sources to include
wastewater streams in chloroprene service.
For maintenance vents, we proposed a requirement that
owners and operators cannot release more than 1.0 ton of chloroprene
from all maintenance vents combined in any consecutive 12-month period.
For PRDs in chloroprene service, we proposed that any
atmospheric PRD release is a violation of the standard.
We also proposed a facility-wide chloroprene emissions cap
for all neoprene production emission sources as a backstop.
Based on our ample margin of safety analysis, we proposed that the
controls to reduce EtO emissions at HON processes and chloroprene
emissions at neoprene production processes to get risks to an
acceptable level (described in this section of the preamble) would also
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We also
proposed that HAP emissions from the source categories do not result in
an adverse environmental effect, and that it is not necessary to set a
more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental
effect.
b. Proposed Actions Related to CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review
Pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the HON
and the P&R I, and P&R II NESHAP, we proposed that no revisions to the
current standards beyond the fenceline monitoring work practice
standard discussed below and those proposed under CAA section 112(f)
are necessary for transfer racks, wastewater streams, and equipment
leaks; however, we did propose additional changes under CAA section
112(d)(6) for heat exchange systems, storage vessels and process vents.
For HON and P&R I heat exchange systems, we proposed
requirements that owners or operators must use the Modified El Paso
Method and repair leaks of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration
(as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv or greater. The P&R II
NESHAP currently does not regulate HAP emissions from heat exchange
systems.
For HON and P&R I storage vessels, we proposed to revise
applicability thresholds to require existing storage vessels between 38
m\3\ (10,000 gal) and 151 m\3\ (40,000 gal) with a vapor pressure >=6.9
kilopascals to add control, and also require upgraded deck fittings and
controls for guidepoles for all IFR storage vessels. For P&R II storage
vessels, we proposed that no revisions to the current standards are
necessary.
For HON and P&R I process vents, we proposed to: (1)
Remove the TRE concept in its entirety; (2) remove 50 ppmv and 0.005
scmm Group 1 process vent thresholds; and (3) redefine a Group 1
process vent (require control) as any process vent that emits >=1.0 lb/
hr of total organic HAP. For P&R II process vents, we proposed that no
revisions to the current standards are necessary.
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also proposed a fenceline
monitoring work practice standard requiring owners and operators to
monitor for any of six specific HAP (i.e., benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, EtO, and chloroprene) if their
site uses, produces, stores, or emits any of them, and conduct root
cause analysis and corrective action upon exceeding the annual average
concentration action level set forth for each HAP. We also requested
public comments on whether to promulgate the fenceline monitoring work
practice standards, including the proposed action levels for EtO and
chloroprene, under the second step of the CAA section 112(f)(2)
residual risk decision framework to provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health in light of facility-wide risks.
c. Proposed Actions Related to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and (3), and
112(h)
We proposed other requirements for the HON and P&R I and P&R II
NESHAP based on analyses performed pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3), and 112(h), and that are consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), ensuring that CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously, including:
new monitoring and operational requirements for flares in
the HON and P&R I NESHAP;
work practice standards for periods of SSM for certain HON
and P&R I vent streams (i.e., PRD releases, maintenance vents, and
planned routine maintenance of storage vessels);
regulatory provisions for vent control bypasses for
certain HON and P&R I vent streams (i.e., closed vent systems
containing bypass lines);
dioxins and furans emission limits in the HON and the P&R
I and P&R II NESHAP;
new monitoring requirements for HON and P&R I pressure
vessels;
new emission standards for HON & P&R I surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers;
a revised applicability threshold for HON transfer racks;
requirements in the P&R II NESHAP for heat exchange
systems;
requirements in the P&R II NESHAP for WSR sources and
equipment leaks;
to require owners and operators that use a sweep, purge,
or inert blanket between the IFR and fixed roof of a storage vessel to
route emissions through a closed vent system and control device;
to remove exemptions in the HON and the P&R I and P&R II
NESHAP from the requirement to comply during periods of SSM; and
to remove affirmative defense provisions from the P&R I
NESHAP that were adopted in 2011.
d. Other Proposed Actions
In addition to the actions described in the sections above related
to NESHAP, we also proposed:
changes to the HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to require the use of
electronic reporting of performance test reports and periodic reports;
restructuring of all HON definitions;
monitoring requirements for adsorbers that cannot be
regenerated and regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite;
to require subsequent performance testing on non-flare
control devices no later than 60 calendar months after the previous
performance test; and
to correct section reference errors and make other minor
editorial revisions.
2. NSPS
a. Proposed Actions Related to CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) Review
Pursuant to the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) reviews for the SOCMI NSPS
rules, we proposed new NSPS for equipment leaks (NSPS subpart VVb) and
process vents associated with air oxidation units (NSPS subpart IIIa),
distillation operations (NSPS subpart NNNa), and reactor processes
(NSPS subpart RRRa).
For NSPS subpart VVb, we proposed the same requirements in
[[Page 42947]]
NSPS subpart VVa plus a requirement that all gas/vapor and light liquid
valves be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 100 ppm and all
connectors be monitored once every 12 months at a leak definition of
500 ppm.
For NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, we proposed the
same requirements in NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR, except we
proposed to: (1) Eliminate the TRE concept in its entirety (including
the removal of the alternative of maintaining a TRE index value greater
than 1 without the use of control device and the limited applicability
exemptions) and instead require owners and operators to reduce
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all vent streams of an
affected facility (i.e., SOCMI air oxidation unit processes,
distillation operations, and reactor processes for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification commences after April 25, 2023) by 98
percent by weight or to a concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen, or combust the emissions in a flare
meeting the same operating and monitoring requirements for flares that
we proposed for flares subject to the HON; (2) eliminate the relief
valve discharge exemption from the definition of ``vent stream'' such
that any relief valve discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a
violation of the emissions standard; (3) require the same work practice
standards for maintenance vents that we proposed for HON process vents;
and (4) require the same monitoring requirements that we proposed for
HON process vents for adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and
regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite.
b. Proposed Actions Related to NSPS Subparts VV and VVa Reconsideration
In response to the January 2008 petition for reconsideration we
proposed: (1) Definitions for ``process unit'' for NSPS subparts VV and
VVa; (2) to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 60.482-1(g) (for NSPS
subpart VV) and 40 CFR 60.482-1a(g) (for NSPS subpart VVa) that are
related to a method for assigning shared storage vessels to specific
process units; (3) to remove the connector monitoring provisions from
NSPS subpart VVa at 40 CFR 60.482-11a in their entirety and instead,
include connector monitoring provisions in NSPS subpart VVb; and (4) to
revise the ``capital expenditure'' definition in NSPS subpart VVa at 40
CFR 60.481a to reflect the definition used in NSPS subpart VV at 40 CFR
60.481 for owners or operators that start a new, reconstructed, or
modified affected source prior to November 16, 2007.
c. Other Proposed Actions
In addition to the actions described in the sections above related
to the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) reviews for the SOCMI NSPS rules and
the NSPS subparts VV and VVa reconsideration, we also proposed:
standards in NSPS subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa that
apply at all times;
the use of electronic reporting of performance test
reports and periodic reports;
several corrections to the calibration drift assessment
requirements in NSPS subpart VVa; and
to require subsequent performance testing on non-flare
control devices no later than 60 calendar months after the previous
performance test.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the
applicable provisions of CAA section 112 for the SOCMI source category
and various polymers and resins source categories and amends the HON
and P&R I and P&R II NESHAP based on those determinations. In addition,
this action finalizes determinations of our review of the SOCMI NSPS
rules pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). This actions also finalizes
other changes to the NESHAP, including adding requirements and
clarifications for periods of SSM and bypasses; revising the operating
and monitoring requirements for flares; adding provisions for
electronic reporting; and other editorial and technical changes.
Additionally, this action finalizes amendments to NSPS subparts VV and
VVa in response to the January 2008 petition for reconsideration. This
action also reflects several changes to the April 25, 2023 proposal (88
FR 25080), in consideration of comments received during the public
comment period as described in section IV of this preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories NESHAP?
Consistent with the proposal, the EPA determined that the risks for
the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories under the previous
MACT standards are unacceptable. When risks are unacceptable, the EPA
must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an
acceptable level. As such, the EPA is promulgating final amendments to
the HON pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) that require control of EtO
for: (1) Process vents, (2) storage vessels, (3) equipment leaks, (4)
heat exchange systems, and (5) wastewater ``in ethylene oxide
service.'' We are also finalizing requirements to reduce EtO emissions
from maintenance vents and PRDs. As discussed in section IV.A of this
preamble, implementation of these controls will reduce risk to an
acceptable level and provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health from source category emissions points. In addition, the
fenceline monitoring requirements being finalized in this action will
further reduce whole-facility EtO and chloroprene emissions at
facilities with HON and Neoprene Production processes, with
consequential reductions in risks from these pollutants. In general, we
are finalizing all of the EtO related requirements as proposed (for
HON), except: we are not finalizing (in response to persuasive comments
received during the public comment period) the proposed requirement at
40 CFR 63.108(p) that would prohibit owners and operators from sending
more than 20 tons of EtO to all of their flares combined in any
consecutive 12-month period. In addition to the primary CAA section
112(d)(6)-based fenceline monitoring program action levels that we are
finalizing for all six HAP that reflect compliance with the source
category-specific emissions limits for SOCMI and P&R I source category
processes (see section III.B.1 of this preamble), we are also
finalizing separately, in the P&R I NESHAP for Neoprene Production
sources, an additional secondary action level under CAA section
112(f)(2) for fenceline monitoring of chloroprene emissions. This
secondary action level for chloroprene for facilities with Neoprene
Production sources is the same action level that was proposed. The
primary chloroprene action level, which applies to sources subject to
40 CFR subpart H in the HON, is higher than what was proposed, but
reflects the modeled emissions concentrations expected to result from
compliance with the other emission standards adopted in the final rule,
as we discussed in the proposed rule. See 88 FR at 25145/col. 2. The
secondary chloroprene action level will further reduce whole-facility
risks caused by such emissions from facilities with Neoprene Production
sources, consistent with the goal to provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health. For this reason, for facilities with Neoprene
Production sources we are promulgating the secondary chloroprene action
level we had proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6)
[[Page 42948]]
under our CAA section 112(f)(2) authority, as we requested comment on
in the proposed rule. See id., at 25145/col. 3.
Also, based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we are
clarifying in this final action that:
we mean ``the procedures specified in Sec. 63.109''
instead of ``sampling and analysis'' within the definitions of ``in
ethylene oxide service'' for storage vessels, equipment leaks, and heat
exchange systems (see 40 CFR 63.101);
the sampling site for determining whether an emissions
source is in EtO service is after the last recovery device (if any
recovery devices are present) but prior to the inlet of any control
device that is present and prior to release to the atmosphere (see 40
CFR 63.109(a));
owners and operators can use good engineering judgment to
determine the percent of EtO of the process fluid cooled by the heat
exchange system similar to what we are allowing for equipment leaks in
40 CFR 63.109(c)(2) (see 40 CFR 63.109(e));
the 5 lb/yr EtO mass threshold for combined process vents
in EtO service is on a CMPU-by-CMPU basis (see 40 CFR 63.113(j)(2), 40
CFR 63.124(a)(4) and (a)(4)(iii), and within the definition of ``in
ethylene oxide service'' for process vents);
owners and operators may delay repair of equipment leaks
in EtO service, and heat exchange systems in EtO service, indefinitely
as long as there is no longer an active EtO leak once the equipment is
isolated and not in EtO service (see 40 CFR 63.104(h)(6) and 40 CFR
63.171(b));
we mean ``process wastewater'' instead of ``wastewater''
in 40 CFR 63.132(c)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(ii);
owners and operators can demonstrate compliance with the
standards for wastewater in EtO service if the concentration of EtO is
reduced, by removal or destruction, to a level less than 1 ppmw as
determined in the procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.145(b) (see 40 CFR
63.138(b)(3) and (c)(3)); and
owners and operators can use test methods specified in 40
CFR 63.109(d) for analysis of EtO in wastewater (see 40 CFR
63.144(b)(5)(i)).
Additionally, the EPA is promulgating final amendments to the P&R I
NESHAP for Neoprene Production sources pursuant to CAA section
112(f)(2) that require control of chloroprene for: (1) Process vents,
(2) storage vessels, (3) wastewater ``in chloroprene service.'' We are
also finalizing requirements to reduce chloroprene emissions from
maintenance vents and PRDs. As discussed in section IV.A of this
preamble, implementation of these controls will reduce risk to an
acceptable level and provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health from the Neoprene Production source category. In general,
we are finalizing all of the chloroprene related requirements as
proposed (for Neoprene Production sources in the P&R I NESHAP), except
in response to persuasive comments received during the public comment
period: (1) We are not finalizing the facility-wide chloroprene
emissions cap at 40 CFR 63.483(a)(10) that would prohibit owners and
operators from emitting 3.8 tpy of chloroprene in any consecutive 12-
month period from all neoprene production emission sources; (2) we are
revising the performance standard from a 99.9 percent by weight
reduction requirement to a 98 percent by weight reduction requirement
for storage vessels in chloroprene service (see 40 CFR 63.484(u) and 40
CFR 53.510), continuous front-end process vents in chloroprene service
(see 40 CFR 63.485(y) and 40 CFR 53.510), and batch front-end process
vents in chloroprene service (see 40 CFR 63.487(j)); (3) we are
finalizing a requirement that owners and operators reduce emissions of
chloroprene from back-end process vents in chloroprene service at
affected sources producing neoprene by venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a non-flare control device that reduces
chloroprene by greater than or equal to 98 percent by weight, to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than 5
lb/yr for all combined process vents (see 40 CFR 63.494(a)(7)); and (4)
we are finalizing in the primary CAA section 112(d)(6)-based fenceline
monitoring program action levels for all six HAP addressed in the
proposal that reflect compliance with the source category-specific
emissions limits for SOCMI and P&R I source category processes, and
which subject sources are largely already meeting (see section III.B.1
of this preamble). Separately, we are also setting an additional
secondary action level under CAA section 112(f)(2) for fenceline
monitoring of chloroprene emissions. This standard will further reduce
whole-facility risks caused by such emissions, consistent with the goal
to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Also,
based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we are
clarifying in this final action that:
we mean ``the procedures specified in Sec. 63.509''
instead of ``sampling and analysis'' within the definitions of ``in
chloroprene service'' for storage vessels (see 40 CFR 63.482);
the sampling site for determining whether an emissions
source is in chloroprene service is after the last recovery device (if
any recovery devices are present) but prior to the inlet of any control
device that is present and prior to release to the atmosphere (see 40
CFR 63.509(a)); and
the 5 lb/yr chloroprene mass threshold for combined
process vents in chloroprene service is on a EPPU-by-EPPU basis (see
the definition of ``in chloroprene service'' for process vents).
Section IV.A.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments
we received on the CAA section 112(f) provisions and our responses.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories NESHAP pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) and NSPS reviews for the SOCMI source category
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)?
1. NESHAP
For transfer racks, wastewater streams, and equipment leaks in the
SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories, the EPA is finalizing its
proposed determination in the technology review that there are no
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards beyond those needed under CAA
section 112(f) or for other purposes besides section 112(d)(6).
Therefore, with the exception of the fenceline monitoring standards
that are discussed further below, we are not finalizing revisions to
the MACT standards for these emission sources under CAA section
112(d)(6).
For heat exchange systems, we determined that there are
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for heat exchange systems in
the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories. Therefore, to satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT
standards, consistent with the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023), to include revisions to the heat exchange system requirements to
require owners or operators to use the Modified El Paso Method and
repair leaks of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane)
in the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv or greater. We are also finalizing, as
proposed, that owners and operators may use the current leak monitoring
requirements for heat exchange systems at 40 CFR 63.104(b) in lieu of
using the Modified El Paso Method provided that 99 percent by weight or
more of the
[[Page 42949]]
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
atmospheres-cubic meters/mol at 25 degrees Celsius. See 40 CFR
63.104(g) through (j) and (l) (for HON), 40 CFR 63.502(n)(7) (for the
P&R I NESHAP), and 40 CFR 63.523(d) and 40 CFR 63.524(c) (for the P&R
II NESHAP).
For storage vessels, we did not identify any control options for
storage tanks subject to the P&R II NESHAP. However, we determined that
there are developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for storage
vessels in the SOCMI and P&R I source categories. Therefore, to satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT
standards, consistent with the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023), to include revisions to the storage vessel applicability
threshold to require both existing and new storage vessels between 38
m\3\ and 151 m\3\ with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 6.9
kilopascals to reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95 percent utilizing
a closed vent system and control device, or reduce organic HAP
emissions either by utilizing an IFR, an EFR, or by routing the
emissions to a process or a fuel gas system, or vapor balancing. We are
also finalizing, as proposed, requirements that all openings in an IFR
(except those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents), rim
space vents, leg sleeves, and deck drains) be equipped with a deck
cover; and that the deck cover be equipped with a gasket between the
cover and the deck; and control requirements for guidepoles for all
storage vessels equipped with an IFR. See Tables 5 and 6 to subpart G,
and 40 CFR 63.119(b)(5)(ix), (x), (xi), and (xii) (for HON) and 40 CFR
63.484(t) (for the P&R I NESHAP).
For process vents, we did not identify any control options for
process vents subject to the P&R II NESHAP. However, we determined that
there are developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for process
vents in the SOCMI and P&R I source categories. Therefore, to satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT
standards, consistent with the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023), to include revisions to the process vent applicability threshold
to redefine a HON Group 1 process vent and P&R I Group 1 continuous
front-end process vent (i.e., to require control) as any process vent
that emits greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP. We
are also removing, as proposed, the TRE concept in its entirety, and
removing, as proposed, the 50 ppmv and 0.005 scmm Group 1 process vent
thresholds. See 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 CFR 63.113(a)(1), (2), and (4)
(for HON) and 40 CFR 63.482 and 40 CFR 63.485(l)(6), (o)(6), (p)(5),
and (x) (for the P&R I NESHAP). To satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are also revising the MACT standards, consistent
with the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), to include
revisions to the process vent applicability threshold to redefine a P&R
I Group 1 batch front-end process vent as process vents that release
total annual organic HAP emissions greater than or equal to 4,536 kg/yr
(10,000 lb/yr) from all batch front-end process vents combined. See 40
CFR 63.482, 40 CFR 63.487(e)(1)(iv), 40 CFR 63.488(d)(2), (e)(4),
(f)(2), and (g)(3) (for the P&R I NESHAP).
Also, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are
revising the MACT standards, consistent with the proposed rule (88 FR
25080, April 25, 2023), to include a fenceline monitoring work practice
standard for the SOCMI and P&R I source categories, requiring owners
and operators to monitor for any of six specific HAP (i.e., benzene,
1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, EtO, and
chloroprene) if their affected source uses, produces, stores, or emits
any of them, and to conduct root cause analysis and corrective action
upon exceeding the annual average concentration action level set forth
for each HAP. However, based on comments received on the proposed
rulemaking, we are amending the fenceline monitoring work practice
standards in the final rule adopted under CAA section 112(d)(6) to
include the action level of 0.8 ug/m\3\ for chloroprene, which reflects
compliance with the source category-specific emissions limits for P&R I
source category processes. The action levels for benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, ethylene dichloride, EtO, and vinyl chloride will also
correspond to the modeled concentrations resulting from compliance with
the process emission standards promulgated in the final rule and/or
levels that HON-subject sources are largely already meeting.
Separately, we are also setting an additional secondary action level of
0.3 ug/m\3\ for chloroprene under CAA section 112(f)(2), because this
standard will further reduce elevated risks from facility-wide
emissions of this pollutant consistent with the goal to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. See 40 CFR 63.184 (for
HON) and 40 CFR 63.502 (for the P&R I NESHAP). In addition, the final
rule includes burden reduction measures to allow owners and operators
to skip fenceline measurement periods for specific monitors with a
history of measurements that are at or below certain specified action
levels. We have also made a clarification that fenceline monitoring is
required for owners and operators with affected sources that produce,
store, or emit one or more of the target analytes; and we have reduced
the requirements in the final rule for the minimum detection limit of
alternative measurement approaches (for fenceline monitoring). In
addition, we have made clarifications on the calculation of delta c
([Delta]c) \27\ when a site-specific monitoring plan is used to correct
monitoring location concentrations due to offsite impacts, and we have
made a change in the required method detection limit for alternative
test methods from an order of magnitude below the action level to one-
third of the action level. Finally, with the exception of fenceline
monitoring of chloroprene at P&R I affected sources producing neoprene,
discussed below, we have changed the compliance date to begin fenceline
monitoring from 1 to 2 years after the effective date of the final
rule. For P&R I affected sources producing neoprene, we have changed
the compliance date for fenceline monitoring of chloroprene to begin no
later than October 15, 2024, or upon startup, whichever is later,
subject to the owner or operator seeking the EPA's authorization of an
extension of up to 2 years from July 15, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Delta c, notated as [Delta]c, represents the concentration
difference between the highest measured concentration and lowest
measured concentration for a set of samples in one sampling period.
The sampling period [Delta]c values are averaged over 1 year to
create an annual average; the annual average [Delta]c is compared to
the action level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III.G.1 of this preamble provides a more detailed
discussion of the effective and compliance dates for the requirements
we are finalizing in this action for the HON and the P&R I NESHAP.
Section IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments we
received on the CAA section 112(d)(6) provisions and our responses.
2. NSPS
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a determination that the BSER
for reducing VOC emissions from SOCMI air oxidation units, distillation
operations, and reactor processes remains combustion (e.g.,
incineration, flares), and we are also maintaining that the standard of
performance of 98
[[Page 42950]]
percent reduction of TOC (minus methane and ethane), or reduction of
TOC (minus methane and ethane) to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv on
a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen, continues to reflect the
BSER for NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa. While we are finalizing no
changes in the BSER for reducing VOC emissions from SOCMI air oxidation
units, distillation operations, and reactor processes, we determined
that there are certain advances in process operations that were not
identified or considered during development of the original NSPS
subparts III, NNN, and RRR (for SOCMI air oxidation units, distillation
operations, and reactor processes, respectively), which warrant
revisions to the requirements for process vents in the SOCMI source
category. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), we are
finalizing revised process vent requirements in new NSPS subparts IIIa,
NNNa, and RRRa (for SOCMI air oxidation unit processes, distillation
operations, and reactor processes for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification commenced after April 25, 2023),
consistent with the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). In
particular, we are finalizing for NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa and RRRa, as
proposed, the removal of the entire TRE concept (including the removal
of the alternative of maintaining a TRE index value greater than 1
without the use of control device and the limited applicability
exemptions) such that owners and operators of affected facilities (for
which construction, reconstruction, or modification commences after
April 25, 2023) are required to reduce emissions of TOC (minus methane
and ethane) from all vent streams of an affected facility by 98 percent
by weight or to a concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry basis corrected to
3 percent oxygen, or combust the emissions in a flare. The EPA is also
finalizing, as proposed, that affected sources that combust the
emissions in a flare meet the same operating and monitoring
requirements for flares that we are finalizing for flares subject to
the HON. However, based on comments received on the proposed
rulemaking, we are finalizing a mass-based exemption criteria of 0.001
lb/hr TOC (for which emission controls are not required) in new NSPS
subparts IIIa and NNNa. Also, as proposed, we are not including in the
final NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa a relief valve discharge
exemption in the definition of ``vent stream''; instead, any relief
valve discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a violation of
the emissions standard. In addition, we are finalizing, as proposed,
the same work practice standards for maintenance vents that we are
finalizing for HON process vents, and, as proposed, the same monitoring
requirements that we are finalizing for HON process vents for adsorbers
that cannot be regenerated and regenerative adsorbers that are
regenerated offsite.
For equipment leaks, we determined that there are techniques used
in practice related to LDAR of certain equipment that achieve greater
emission reductions than those currently required by NSPS subpart VVa.
Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), we
are finalizing revised equipment leak requirements in new NSPS subpart
VVb (for facilities that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after April 25, 2023), consistent with the proposed rule
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). We are finalizing that BSER for gas and
light liquid valves is the same monitoring in an LDAR program as NSPS
subpart VVa, but now at a leak definition of 100 ppm, and BSER for
connectors is monitoring in the LDAR program at a leak definition of
500 ppm and monitored annually, with reduced frequency for good
performance. In a change from the proposed rule, we are finalizing a
definition of ``capital expenditure'' in NSPS subpart VVb to use a
formula that better reflects the trajectory of inflation.
Section IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments
we received on the proposed provisions pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B) and our responses.
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), and 112(h) for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source
categories?
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
and the April 25, 2023, proposal (88 FR 25080), we are revising
monitoring and operational requirements for flares to ensure HON and
P&R I flares meet the MACT standards at all times when controlling HAP
emissions.\28\ See 40 CFR 63.108 (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.508 (for the
P&R I NESHAP). In addition, we are finalizing provisions and
clarifications as proposed for periods of SSM and bypasses, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ P&R II sources do not use flares as APCDs as they are
making resins from chlorinated chemicals (i.e., epichlorohydrin
feedstocks), and chlorinated chemicals are not controlled with
flares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRD releases (see 40 CFR 63.165(e) (for HON) and 40 CFR
63.502(a) (for the P&R I NESHAP));
bypass lines on closed vent systems (see 40 CFR
63.114(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.118(a)(5), 40 CFR 63.127(d)(3), 40 CFR
63.130(a)(2)(iv), (b)(3), and (d)(7), and 40 CFR 63.148(f)(4),
(i)(3)(iii), and (j)(4) (for HON and the P&R I NESHAP) as well as 40
CFR 63.480(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.491(e)(6), 40 CFR 63.497(d)(3), and
63.498(d)(5)(v) (for the P&R I NESHAP));
maintenance vents and equipment openings (excluding
storage vessel degassing) (see 40 CFR 63.113(k) (for HON) 40 CFR
63.485(x) and 40 CFR 63.487(i) (for the P&R I NESHAP));
storage vessel degassing (see 40 CFR 63.119(a)(2) (for
HON) and 40 CFR 63.484(a) (for the P&R I NESHAP)); and
planned routine maintenance for storage vessels (see 40
CFR 63.119(e)(3) through (5) (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.484(a) (for the
P&R I NESHAP)).
However, in response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking for storage vessel degassing, we are: (1) Clarifying in the
final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) that the storage vessel degassing
work practice standard applies to all Group 1 storage vessels,
including storage vessels in EtO service, and (2) revising the storage
vessel degassing work practice standard in the final rule at 40 CFR
63.119(a)(6) to allow storage vessels to be vented to the atmosphere
once a storage vessel degassing organic HAP concentration of 5,000 ppmv
as methane is met, or until the vapor space concentration is less than
10 percent of the LEL. In addition, in response to comments received on
the proposed rulemaking for planned routine maintenance of storage
vessels, we are clarifying in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(f)(3)
that the 240-hour planned routine maintenance provisions also apply for
breathing losses for fixed rood roof vessels routed to a fuel gas
system or to a process.
To address regulatory gaps, we are also finalizing the emission
limits as proposed for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins) and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans) for HON, P&R I, and P&R II
facilities (see 40 CFR 63.113(a)(5) (for HON), 40 CFR 63.485(x) and 40
CFR 63.487(a)(3) and (b)(3) (for the P&R I NESHAP), and 40 CFR
63.523(e), 40 CFR 63.524(a)(3), and 40 CFR 63.524(b)(3) (for the P&R II
NESHAP)). We are also finalizing the requirements as proposed for
transfer operations (see 40 CFR 63.101 (for HON)), heat exchange
systems (40 CFR 63.523(d) and 40 CFR 63.524(c) (for the P&R II
NESHAP)), and WSR sources and equipment leaks (see 40 CFR 63.524(a)(3)
and (b)(3) (for the P&R II NESHAP)). In addition, we are finalizing the
requirements as proposed for pressure vessels (see 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7)
(for HON) and 40 CFR 63.484(t) (for the P&R I NESHAP)), surge
[[Page 42951]]
control and bottoms receivers (see 40 CFR 63.170(b) (for HON) and 40
CFR 63.485(d) (for the P&R I NESHAP)), but with a few changes in the
final rule in response to persuasive comments received during the
public comment period.
In response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking for
pressure vessels, we are:
clarifying that the pressure vessel requirements at 40 CFR
63.119(a)(7) only apply to pressure vessels that are considered Group 1
storage vessels;
clarifying that if the equipment is not a connector, gas/
vapor or light liquid valve, light liquid pump, or PRD in ETO service
and the equipment is on a pressure vessel located at a HON or P&R I
facility, then that particular equipment is not subject to HON subpart
H, but rather the equipment is subject to the pressure vessel
requirements we proposed and are finalizing in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7);
clarifying that unsafe and difficult/inaccessible to
monitor provisions in 40 CFR 63.168(h) and (i) (for valves in gas/vapor
service and in light liquid service) and in 40 CFR 63.174(f) and (h)
(for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service) still
apply to valves and connectors when complying with 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7);
and
replacing the word ``deviation'' with ``violation'' in the
final rule text at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7).
In response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking for
surge control and bottoms receivers, we are adding language in the
``C'' and ``Q'' terms of the equations at 40 CFR 63.115(g)(3)(ii) and
(g)(4)(iv) to allow the use of engineering calculations to determine
concentration or flow rate only in situations where measurements cannot
be taken with EPA reference methods. We are also adding reference
methods for measuring flow rate at 40 CFR 63.115(g)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR
63.115(g)(4)(iv).
Finally, we are finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators
that use a sweep, purge, or inert blanket between the IFR and fixed
roof of a storage vessel are required to route emissions through a
closed vent system and control device (see 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7)).
However, based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we are
clarifying in the final rule that 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7) applies only if a
continuous sweep, purge, or inert blanket is used between the IFR and
fixed roof that causes a pressure/vacuum vent to remain continuously
open to the atmosphere where uncontrolled emissions are greater than or
equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP.
Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments
we received on the CAA sections 112(d)(2), (d)(3), and (h) provisions
and our responses.
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
1. NESHAP
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the HON and the P&R I
and P&R II NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In
its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemptions contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the
CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature,
and that the SSM exemptions violated the CAA's requirement that some
CAA section 112 standards apply at all times. We are finalizing, as
proposed, a requirement that the standards apply at all times (see 40
CFR 63.102(e) (for HON) and 40 CFR.525(j) (for the P&R II NESHAP)),
consistent with the Sierra Club decision. We determined that facilities
in the SOCMI and P&R II source categories can meet the applicable MACT
standards at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. We
note that on April 21, 2011 (see 77 FR 22566), the EPA finalized
amendments to eliminate the SSM exemption in the P&R I NESHAP; however,
for consistency with the SSM-related amendments that we are finalizing
for the HON and the P&R II NESHAP, we are also finalizing, as proposed,
additional amendments to the P&R I NESHAP related to the SSM exemption
that were not addressed in the April 21, 2011, P&R I rule.
As discussed in the proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA
section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for
malfunction periods where feasible. Where appropriate, and as discussed
in section III.C of this preamble, we are also finalizing alternative
standards for certain emission points during periods of SSM to ensure a
CAA section 112 standard applies ``at all times.'' Other than for those
specific emission points discussed in section III.C of this preamble,
the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed to address
emissions during periods of SSM and that facilities in the SOCMI and
P&R II source categories can meet the applicable MACT standards at all
times, including periods of startup and shutdown.
We are also finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the HON and P&R
II General Provisions tables (Table 3 to subpart F of part 63 and Table
1 to subpart W of part 63, respectively) to eliminate requirements that
include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. We
note that the EPA already made a similar revision to the General
Provisions table to the P&R I NESHAP (see 77 FR 22566, April 21, 2011).
Additionally, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language
related to SSM that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as
periods of malfunction. Finally, we are finalizing our proposal to
revise reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations as they
relate to exemptions for periods of SSM. These revisions are consistent
with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.102(e) and 40 CFR.525(j) that the
standards apply at all times. We are also finalizing, as proposed, a
revision to the performance testing requirements. The final performance
testing provisions prohibit performance testing during SSM because
these conditions are not representative of normal operating conditions.
The final rule also requires, as proposed, that operators maintain
records to document that operating conditions during the test represent
normal operations. In light of NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir.,
2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA section 112
rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns), the
EPA is also removing, as proposed, all of the regulatory affirmative
defense provisions from the P&R I NESHAP at 40 CFR 480(j)(4) in its
entirety and all other rule text that references these provisions
(i.e., the definition of affirmative defense in 40 CFR 63.482(b) and
the reference to ``Sec. [thinsp]63.480(j)(4)'' in 40 CFR
63.506(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(1)(i)(B)); and we did not receive any
comments in opposition to these amendments.
The legal rationale and detailed revisions for SSM periods and the
affirmative defense provision that we are finalizing here are set forth
in the proposal preamble (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
2. NSPS
The EPA has determined the reasoning in the court's decision in
Sierra Club applies equally to CAA
[[Page 42952]]
section 111 because the definition of ``emission'' or ``standard'' in
CAA section 302(k), and the embedded requirement for continuous
standards, also applies to the NSPS.\29\ Therefore, we are finalizing,
as proposed, standards in NSPS subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa that
apply at all times, and more specifically during periods of SSM. The
NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c) currently exempt non-opacity
emission standards during periods of SSM. We are finalizing, as
proposed, specific requirements in NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa
that override the general provisions for SSM (see 40 CFR 60.612a, 40
CFR 60.662a, and 40 CFR 60.702a, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., 88 FR 11556 (Feb. 23, 2023) (removing SSM
exemptions from NSPS for lead acid battery manufacturing plants); 88
FR 80594 (Nov. 20, 2023) (removing SSM exemptions from NSPS for
secondary lead smelters); 77 FR 49490 (Aug. 16, 2012) (removing SSM
exemptions from NSPS for oil and natural gas sector).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What are the final amendments addressing the NSPS Subparts VV and
VVa reconsideration?
In response to the January 2008 petition for reconsideration, we
are finalizing, as proposed: (1) Definitions for ``process unit'' for
NSPS subparts VV and VVa; (2) removal of the requirements in 40 CFR
60.482-1(g) (for NSPS subpart VV) and 40 CFR 60.482-1a(g) (for NSPS
subpart VVa) that are related to a method for assigning shared storage
vessels to specific process units; and (3) removal of the connector
monitoring provisions from NSPS subpart VVa at 40 CFR 60.482-11a in
their entirety. However, based on comments received on the proposed
rulemaking, we are revising the value of ``X'' in the capital
expenditure equation of NSPS subpart VVa to correct an erroneous
phrasing that attached the value of ``X'' in the percent Y equation to
the date of construction, reconstruction and modification (as opposed
to date of physical or operational change). In the final rule, we have
revised the ``capital expenditure'' definition in NSPS subpart VVa at
40 CFR 60.481a such that for owners or operators that made a physical
or operational change to their existing facility prior to November 16,
2007, the percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y = 1.0
- 0.575 log X, where the value of ``X'' is 1982 minus the year of
construction, and for owners or operators that made a physical or
operational change to their existing facility on or after November 16,
2007, the percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y = 1.0
- 0.575 log X, where the value of ``X'' is 2006 minus the year of
construction. Section IV.E.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key
comments we received on the NSPS subparts VV and VVa reconsideration
issues and our responses.
F. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP and NSPS?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP and NSPS requirements. We describe these revisions in this
section as well as other proposed provisions that have changed since
proposal.
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that
owners or operators submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports, flare management plans, and periodic reports
(including fenceline monitoring reports for HON and the P&R I NESHAP)
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) (see 40 CFR 63.108(e), 40
CFR 63.152(c) and (h), and 40 CFR 63.182(d) and (e) (for HON), 40 CFR
63.506(e)(6), and (i)(3) (for the P&R I NESHAP), and 40 CFR 63.528(a)
and (d) (for the P&R II NESHAP), 40 CFR 60.486(l), and 60.487(a) and
(g) through (i) (for NSPS subpart VV), 40 CFR 60.486a(l), and
60.487a(a) and (g) through (i) (for NSPS subpart VVa), 40 CFR
60.486b(l), and 60.487b(a) and (g) through (i) (for NSPS subpart VVb),
40 CFR 60.615(b), (j), (k), and (m) through (o) (for NSPS subpart III),
40 CFR 60.615a(b), (h) through (l), and (n), and 40 CFR 619a(e) (for
NSPS subpart IIIa), 40 CFR 60.665(b), (l), (m), and (q) through (s)
(for NSPS subpart NNN), 40 CFR 60.665a(b), (h), (k) through (n), and
(p), and 40 CFR 669a(e) (for NSPS subpart NNNa), 40 CFR 60.705(b), (l),
(m), and (u) through (w) (for NSPS subpart RRR), and 40 CFR 60.705a(b),
(k) through (o), and (v), and 40 CFR 709a(e) (for NSPS subpart RRRa)).
A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0730-0002). The final rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \30\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on
the ERT website, and other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
For periodic reports (including fenceline monitoring reports), the
final rule requires that owners or operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. We have made minor
clarifying edits to the spreadsheet templates based on comments
received during the public comment period. The final version of the
templates for these reports are located on the CEDRI website.\31\ The
final rule requires that flare management plans be submitted as a PDF
upload in CEDRI. Furthermore, we are finalizing, as proposed,
provisions in the NSPS that allow facility operators the ability to
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the
CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a
report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim. For a
more detailed discussion of these final amendments, see section III.E.3
of the proposal preamble (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), as well as
sections IV.F and VI.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
\31\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, we are finalizing, as proposed, the restructuring of all HON
definitions from NESHAP subparts G and H (i.e., 40 CFR 63.111 and 40
CFR 63.161, respectively) into the definition section of NESHAP subpart
F (i.e., 40 CFR 63.101). To consolidate differences between certain
definitions in these subparts, we are also finalizing the amendments we
proposed in Table 30 of the proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023), with only minor changes based on comments received on the
proposed rulemaking. The comments and our specific responses to these
items can be found in the document titled Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In addition, we are finalizing requirements, as proposed, at 40 CFR
63.114(a)(5)(v), 40 CFR 63.120(d)(1)(iii), 40 CFR 63.127(b)(4), and 40
CFR
[[Page 42953]]
63.139(d)(5) (for HON), and 40 CFR 63.484(t), 40 CFR 63.485(x), and 40
CFR 63.489(b)(10) (for the P&R I NESHAP) for owners or operators using
adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and regenerative adsorbers that
are regenerated offsite to use dual (two or more) adsorbent beds in
series and conduct monitoring of HAP or TOC on the outlet of the first
adsorber bed in series using a sample port and a portable analyzer or
chromatographic analysis. However, we have clarified in the proposed
rule text in this final action that the monitoring plan provisions in
40 CFR 63.120(d)(2) and (3) do not apply to HON sources subject to the
monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 63.120(d)(1)(iii); and the monitoring
plan provisions in 40 CFR 63.120(d)(2) and (3) do not apply to P&R I
sources subject to the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
63.120(d)(1)(iii) (via 40 CFR 63.484(t) and 40 CFR 63.485(x)). The
comments and our specific responses to these items can be found in the
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
We are also finalizing, as proposed, several corrections to the
calibration drift assessment requirements in NSPS subpart VVa at 40 CFR
60.485a(b)(2). These amendments include: (1) Correcting a regulatory
citation to read ``Sec. 60.486a(e)(8)'' instead of ``Sec.
60.486a(e)(7)''; (2) removing the extraneous sentence ``Calculate the
average algebraic difference between the three meter readings and the
most recent readings and the most recent calibration value.''; (3)
providing clarity in the mathematical step of the assessment by
replacing the sentence ``Divide this algebraic difference by the
initial calibration value and multiply by 100 to express the
calibration drift as a percentage.'' with ``Divide the arithmetic
difference of the initial and post-test calibration response by the
corresponding calibration gas value for each scale and multiply by 100
to express the calibration drift as a percentage.''; and (4) providing
clarity by making other minor textural changes to the provisions
related to the procedures for when a calibration drift assessment shows
negative or positive drift of more than 10 percent. We did not receive
any comments in opposition of these amendments.
In addition, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement in the
HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP, and NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and
RRRa to conduct subsequent performance testing on non-flare control
devices no later than 60 calendar months after the previous performance
test. The comments and our specific response to this item can be found
in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New
Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Also, we are finalizing, as proposed to: (1) Remove the provisions
that allow compliance with certain portions of 40 CFR part 264, subpart
AA or CC in lieu of portions of NESHAP subpart G (see 40 CFR
63.110(h)); and (2) remove the provisions that allow compliance with
certain portions of 40 CFR part 65 in lieu of portions of NESHAP
subparts G and H (see 40 CFR 63.110(i) and 40 CFR 60.160(g)). In
addition, based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we
are: (1) Revising 40 CFR 63.160(b)(1) and (c)(1) in the final rule such
that compliance with HON subpart H constitutes compliance with NSPS
subpart VVa provided the owner or operator continues to comply with 40
CFR 60.480a(e)(2)(i); and (2) revising 40 CFR 63.160(b)(1) and (c)(1)
in the final rule such that compliance with HON subpart H constitutes
compliance with NSPS subpart VVb provided the owner or operator
continues to comply with 40 CFR 60.480b(e)(2)(i). We have also revised
40 CFR 60.480b(e)(2)(i) in the final rule to require compliance with 40
CFR 60.482-7b (i.e., the standards for gas and light liquid valves in
NSPS subpart VVb) in addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.485b(d),
(e), and (f), and 40 CFR 60.486b(i) and (j). The comments and our
specific responses to these items can be found in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance
Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Finally, we are finalizing all of the revisions that we proposed
for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical
errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial corrections and
clarifications are discussed in section III.E.5.f of the proposal
preamble (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). We are also including
several additional minor clarifying edits in the final rule based on
comments received during the public comment period. The comments and
our specific responses to these items can be found in the document
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
1. HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP
For all of the requirements we are finalizing under CAA sections
112(d)(2), (3), and (6), and 112(h) (except for the removal of
affirmative defense provisions in the P&R I NESHAP and fenceline
monitoring requirements in HON and the P&R I NESHAP), all existing
affected sources and all affected sources that were new sources under
the previous HON and P&R I NESHAP (i.e., sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after December 31, 1992 (for HON) or
after June 12, 1995 (for the P&R I NESHAP), and on or before April 25,
2023), must comply with all of the amendments no later than July 15,
2027, or upon startup, whichever is later. For existing sources, CAA
section 112(i) provides that the compliance date for standards
promulgated under section 112(d) shall be as expeditious as
practicable, but no later than 3 years after the effective date of the
standard. Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated
under [section 112].''). We agree with the commenters (see section 11.1
of the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New
Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and
[[Page 42954]]
Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking) that 3 years is needed for owners and
operators to implement the requirements we are finalizing under CAA
sections 112(d)(2), (3), and (6). For example, for process vents, if an
affected source has uncontrolled process vents that emit greater than
or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP, then a new control system,
such as a thermal oxidizer with piping, ductwork, etc., may need to be
installed (due to the removal of the TRE concept in its entirety in the
final rule). Also, additional permits (e.g., New Source Review and/or a
Title V permit modifications) may be required for new emission control
equipment. Moreover, 3 years is needed to understand the final rule
changes; revise site guidance and compliance programs; ensure
operations can meet the standards during startup and shutdown; update
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans; upgrade emission capture
and control systems; install new flare monitoring equipment; and
install new process control systems. As provided in CAA section 112(i)
and 5 U.S.C. 801(3), all new affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after April 25, 2023, are required to
comply with all requirements under CAA sections 112(d)(2), (3), (6),
and 112(h) (including fenceline monitoring) by July 15, 2024 or upon
startup, whichever is later. We are also finalizing, as proposed, that
owners or operators of P&R I affected sources must comply with the
removal of the affirmative defense provisions 60 days after the
publication date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is
later). We provided additional rationale for these compliance dates in
the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
In a change from the proposed rule, we have extended the compliance
date for fenceline monitoring (with the exception of fenceline
monitoring of chloroprene at P&R I affected sources producing neoprene,
which is discussed later in this section) from 1 to 2 years. Owners and
operators of all existing sources, and all affected sources that were
new under the current rules--i.e., sources that commenced construction
or reconstruction after December 31, 1992 (for HON) or after June 12,
1995 (for the P&R I NESHAP), and on or before April 25, 2023--must
begin fenceline monitoring 2 years after the effective date of the
final rule and, starting 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule, must perform root cause analysis and apply corrective action
requirements upon exceedance of an annual average concentration action
level. We extended the timeline for fenceline monitoring from 1 to 2
years based on comments received, which indicated that EPA Method 327
will require laboratories to increase their capacity to meet the
requirements for fenceline monitoring. We consider this expanded
timeline to be necessary to allow commercial labs to conduct the needed
method development, expand capacity, and develop the logistics needed
to meet the requirements in the final rule. We also agree with
commenters' other assertions that more time is needed to read and
assess the new fenceline monitoring requirements; prepare sampling and
analysis plans; develop and submit site-specific monitoring plans;
identify representative, accessible, and secure monitoring locations
for offsite monitors and obtain permission from the property owner to
both place and routinely access the monitors; make any necessary
physical improvements to fencelines to be able to site monitors,
including construction of access roads, physical fencing, and potential
drainage improvements; and obtain approval of any necessary capital
expenditures. We consider 2 years to be necessary to allow for all of
these things. For additional details, see section 11.1 of the document
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
For all of the requirements we are finalizing under CAA sections
112(f) for the HON, we are finalizing as proposed, except we are
clarifying that the compliance dates we proposed are from the effective
date of the rule rather than the publication date of the proposal. In
other words, all existing affected sources and all affected sources
that were new sources under the previous HON (i.e., sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after December 31, 1992, and
on or before April 25, 2023) must comply with the EtO requirements no
later than July 15, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later. As
explained in the April 25, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 25080, 25176),
CAA section 112(f)(4) prescribes the compliance date for emission
standards issued under CAA section 112(f). Ass'n of Battery Recyclers
v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (``[S]ection 112(f)(4)'s
two-year maximum applies more specifically to standards `under this
subsection,' i.e., section 112(f).''). For existing sources, the
earliest compliance date for CAA section 112(f) standards is 90 days.
However, the compliance period can be extended up to 2 years if the EPA
finds that more time is needed for the installation of controls. 42
U.S.C. 7412(f)(4)(B). The EPA finds that the new EtO provisions under
CAA section 112(f) will require additional time to plan, purchase, and
install emission control equipment. For example, for process vents, if
an affected source cannot demonstrate 99.9-percent control of EtO
emissions, or reduce EtO emissions to less than 1 ppmv (from each
process vent) or 5 pounds per year (for all combined process vents),
then a new control system, such as a scrubber with piping, ductwork,
feed tanks, etc., may need to be installed. Similarly, this same
scenario (i.e., installation of a new control system, such as a
scrubber with piping, ductwork, feed tanks, etc) may be necessary for
storage vessels in order to reduce EtO emissions by greater than or
equal to 99.9 percent by weight or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv.
Likewise, a new steam stripper may be needed control wastewater with a
total annual average concentration of EtO greater than or equal to 1
ppmw. Additionally, we agree with commenters (see section 11.1 of the
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking) that additional permits may be required for these new
emission control equipment (e.g., New Source Review and/or a Title V
permit modifications). In other words, sufficient time is needed to
properly engineer the project, obtain capital authorization and
funding, procure the equipment, obtain permits, and construct and
start-up the equipment. Therefore, we are finalizing a compliance date
of 2 years after the effective date of the final rule for all existing
affected sources to meet the EtO requirements. All new affected sources
that commence construction or reconstruction after April 25, 2023, are
required to comply with the EtO requirements for the HON by July 15,
2024 or upon startup, whichever is later.
[[Page 42955]]
This compliance schedule is consistent with the compliance deadlines
outlined in the CAA under section 112(f)(4) and the CRA. We provided
additional rationale for these compliance dates in the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
In a change from the proposed rule, the EPA is shortening the
compliance deadline for affected sources producing neoprene, due to the
EPA's finding that chloroprene emissions from the only such source pose
an imminent and substantial endangerment under CAA section 303, 42
U.S.C. 7603. United States v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC, et al.,
No. 2:23-cv-00735 (E.D. La. filed Feb. 28, 2023). All existing affected
sources producing neoprene and all affected sources producing neoprene
that were new sources under the previous P&R I NESHAP (i.e., sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after June 12, 1995, and
on or before April 25, 2023) must comply with the chloroprene
requirements we are finalizing under CAA section 112(f) for the P&R I
NESHAP (see sections III.B.1 and IV.A.3.e of this preamble for a
details about these chloroprene requirements) no later than October 15,
2024,\32\ or upon startup, whichever is later. However, such sources
may seek the EPA's approval of a waiver from the 90-day compliance
deadline and obtain a compliance date of up to July 15, 2026 if they
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that ``such period is
necessary for the installation of controls'' and that steps will be
taken during the waiver period to assure that the public health of
persons will be protected from any imminent endangerment. See 42 U.S.C.
112(f)(4)(B); 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The compliance date is 90 days after the effective date of
this final action due to the Congressional Review Act.
\33\ We are revising the General Provisions table to the P&R II
NESHAP entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``No'' to
``Yes'' for affected sources producing neoprene. EPA is also
retaining authority to grant or deny requests for extensions of the
compliance date under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii) at 40 CFR 63.507(c)(6),
and is not delegating that authority to states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All new affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 25, 2023, are required to comply with the
chloroprene requirements for P&R I affected sources producing neoprene
no later than by July 15, 2024 or upon startup, whichever is later.
This compliance schedule is consistent with the compliance deadlines
outlined in the CAA under section 112(f)(4) and the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801.
2. NSPS Subparts VV, VVa, VVb, III, IIIa, NNN, NNNa, RRR, RRRa
All sources of equipment leaks in the SOCMI (regulated under NSPS
subpart VVb) and all SOCMI air oxidation unit processes, distillation
operations, and reactor processes (regulated under NSPS subparts IIIa,
NNNa, and RRRa, respectively), that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification on or after April 25, 2023, must meet
the requirements of the new NSPS upon startup of the new, reconstructed
or modified facility or by July 15, 2024, whichever is later. This
compliance schedule is consistent with the requirements in section 111
of the CAA and the CRA.
Also, for NSPS subparts VV, VVa, III, NNN, and RRR, we are
finalizing, as proposed, the change in format of the reporting
requirements to require electronic reporting (i.e., we are not
finalizing any new data elements); and owners and operators must begin
submitting performance test reports electronically beginning on July
15, 2024 and semiannual reports on and after July 15, 2025 or once the
report template for the subpart has been available on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1
year, whichever date is later. For NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa,
we are finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators must submit
performance test reports electronically within 60 days after the date
of completing each performance test, and for NSPS subparts VVb, IIIa,
NNNa, and RRRa, semiannual reports on and after July 15, 2024 or once
the report template for the subpart has been available on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri)
for 1 year, whichever date is later.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance
Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
A. Residual Risk Review for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production Source
Categories NESHAP
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the SOCMI and
Neoprene Production source categories?
a. SOCMI Source Category
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the April 25, 2023, proposed rule for the SOCMI source
category subject to HON (88 FR 25080). The results of the risk
assessment for the proposal are presented briefly in Table 1 of this
preamble. More detail is in the residual risk technical support
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the SOCMI Source Category in
Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (see
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0085).
[[Page 42956]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.004
The results of the proposed chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment at proposal indicated that, based on estimates of current
actual and allowable emissions, the maximum individual lifetime cancer
risk posed by the source category was 2,000-in-1 million driven by EtO
emissions from PRDs (74 percent) and equipment leaks (20 percent). At
proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from this source
category was estimated to be 2 excess cancer cases per year.
Approximately 7.2 million people were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the facilities in this
source category. At proposal, the estimated maximum chronic noncancer
target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) for the source category was
2 for respiratory effects at two different facilities (from maleic
anhydride emissions at one facility and chlorine emissions at another
facility).
As shown in Table 1 of this preamble, the worst-case acute hazard
quotient (HQ) (based on the reference exposure level (REL)) at proposal
was 3 based on the RELs for chlorine and acrolein. In addition, at
proposal, the multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a
maximum Tier 3 cancer screening value (SV) of 60 for mercury and 2 for
cadmium for the fisher scenario, and 20 for polycyclic organic matter
(POM) for the gardener scenario. At proposal, no site-specific
assessment using TRIM.FaTE (which incorporates AERMOD deposition,
enhanced soil/water run-off calculations, and model boundary
identification) was deemed necessary. The EPA determined that it is not
necessary to go beyond the Tier 3 lake analysis or conduct a site-
specific assessment for cadmium, mercury, or POM. The EPA compared the
Tier 3 screening results to site-specific risk estimates for five
previously assessed source categories and concluded that if the Agency
was to perform a site-specific assessment for the SOCMI source
category, the HQ for ingestion exposure, specifically cadmium and
mercury through fish ingestion, is at or below 1; and for POM, the
maximum cancer risk under the rural gardener scenario would likely
decrease to below 1-in-1 million. Also, at proposal, the highest annual
average lead concentration of 0.004 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) was well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for lead, indicating low potential for multipathway risk of concern due
to lead emissions.
At proposal, the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by
the 195 modeled facilities, based on whole-facility emissions, was
2,000-in-1 million, with EtO emissions from PRDs (74 percent) and
equipment leaks (20 percent) from SOCMI source category emissions
driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum
chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) posed by whole-facility emissions
was estimated to be 4 (for respiratory effects) due mostly (98 percent)
to emissions from 2 facilities.
We weighed all health risk measures and factors, including those
shown in Table 1 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability
determination and proposed that the risks posed by the SOCMI source
category under the current MACT provisions are unacceptable (section
III.B of the proposal preamble, 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). At
proposal, we identified EtO as the driver of the unacceptable risk and
evaluated several options to control EtO emissions from (1) process
vents, (2) storage vessels, (3) equipment leaks, (4) heat exchange
systems, and (5) wastewater ``in ethylene oxide service.''
[[Page 42957]]
We also proposed requirements to reduce EtO emissions from maintenance
vents, flares, and PRDs.
For process vents, we proposed to define ``in ethylene oxide
service'' in the HON at 40 CFR 63.101 to mean each process vent in a
process that, when uncontrolled, contains a concentration of greater
than or equal to 1 ppmv undiluted EtO, and when combined, the sum of
all these process vents would emit uncontrolled EtO emissions greater
than or equal to 5 pounds per year (2.27 kilograms per year).
For storage vessels of any capacity and vapor pressure, we proposed
to define ``in ethylene oxide service'' in the HON at 40 CFR 63.101 to
mean that the concentration of EtO of the stored liquid is at least 0.1
percent by weight. Additionally, we proposed that unless specified by
the Administrator, owners and operators may calculate the concentration
of EtO of the fluid stored in a storage vessel if information specific
to the fluid stored is available such as concentration data from safety
data sheets. We also proposed that the exemption for ``vessels storing
organic liquids that contain organic hazardous air pollutants only as
impurities'' listed in the definition of ``storage vessel'' at 40 CFR
63.101 does not apply for storage vessels in EtO service.
For the EtO equipment leak provisions, we proposed to define ``in
ethylene oxide service'' in the HON at 40 CFR 63.101 to mean any
equipment that contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at
least 0.1 percent by weight of EtO.
For heat exchange systems, we proposed to define ``in ethylene
oxide service'' in the HON at 40 CFR 63.101 to mean each heat exchange
system in a process that cools process fluids (liquid or gas) that are
0.1 percent or greater by weight of EtO.
For wastewater, we proposed to define ``in ethylene oxide service''
in the HON at 40 CFR 63.101 to mean each wastewater stream that
contains total annual average concentration of EtO greater than or
equal to 1 ppmw at any flow rate.
To reduce risks from process vents in EtO service, we proposed
requirements at 40 CFR 63.113(j) to reduce emissions of EtO by either
(1) venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device
that reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight, to
a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than
5 lb/yr for all combined process vents; or (2) venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to a flare meeting the flare operating
requirements discussed in section III.B.4.a.i of the proposal preamble
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
To reduce risks from storage vessels in EtO service, we proposed a
requirement at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5) to reduce emissions of EtO by either
(1) venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device
that reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight or
to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each storage vessel vent; or
(2) venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare meeting
the flare operating requirements discussed in section IV.A.1 of the
proposal preamble (84 FR 69182, December 17, 2019).
To reduce risks from equipment leaks in EtO service, we proposed
the following combined requirements: monitoring of connectors in gas/
vapor and light liquid service at a leak definition of 100 ppm on a
monthly basis with no reduction in monitoring frequency or delay of
repair (at 40 CFR 63.174(a)(3) and 40 CFR 63.174(b)(3)(vi)); light
liquid pump monitoring at a leak definition of 500 ppm monthly (at 40
CFR 63.163(b)(2)(iv)); and gas/vapor and light liquid valve monitoring
at a leak definition of 100 ppm monthly with no reduction in monitoring
frequency or delay of repair (at 40 CFR 63.168(b)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR
63.168(d)(5)).
To reduce risks from EtO emissions due to heat exchange system
leaks, we proposed at 40 CFR 63.104(g)(6) to require weekly monitoring
for leaks for heat exchange systems in EtO service using the Modified
El Paso Method, and if a leak is found, we proposed at 40 CFR
63.104(h)(6) that owners and operators must repair the leak to reduce
the concentration or mass emissions rate to below the applicable leak
action level as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 days after
the sample was collected with no delay of repair allowed.
To reduce risks from wastewater in EtO service, we proposed at 40
CFR 63.132(c)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(ii) that owners and operators of HON
sources manage and treat any wastewater streams that are ``in ethylene
oxide service.'' We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.104(k) to prohibit
owners and operators from injecting water into or disposing of water
through any heat exchange system in a CMPU meeting the conditions of 40
CFR 63.100(b)(1) through (3) if the water contains any amount of EtO,
has been in contact with any process stream containing EtO, or the
water is considered wastewater as defined in 40 CFR 63.101.
In addition, we proposed at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(D) that any
release event from a PRD in EtO service is a violation of the standard
to ensure that these process vent emissions are controlled and do not
bypass controls. Also, in order to help reduce EtO risk from the SOCMI
source category to an acceptable level, we proposed: (1) A requirement
at 40 CFR 63.113(k)(4) that owners and operators cannot release more
than 1.0 ton of EtO from all maintenance vents combined in any
consecutive 12-month period; and (2) a requirement at 40 CFR 63.108(p)
that owners and operators can send no more than 20 tons of EtO to all
of their flares combined in any consecutive 12-month period from all
HON emission sources at a facility.
After implementation of the proposed controls for: (1) Process
vents, (2) storage vessels, (3) equipment leaks, (4) heat exchange
systems, and (5) wastewater ``in ethylene oxide service,'' as well as
implementation of the proposed requirements to reduce EtO emissions
from maintenance vents, flares, and PRDs, we proposed that the
resulting risks would be acceptable for the SOCMI source category. We
determined at proposal that estimated post-control risks would be
reduced to 100-in-1 million (down from 2,000-in-1 million) with no
individuals exposed to risk levels greater than 100-in-1 million from
HAP emissions from HON processes (see section III.B.2 of the proposal
preamble, 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
We then considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
additional standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental
effect. We noted that the EPA previously made a determination that the
standards for the SOCMI source category provided an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and that the most significant change
since that determination was the revised 2016 IRIS inhalation URE for
EtO and new 2010 IRIS inhalation URE for chloroprene. As such, we
focused our ample margin of safety analysis on cancer risk for EtO and
chloroprene, since these pollutants, even after application of controls
needed to get risks to an acceptable level, drive cancer risk and
cancer incidence (i.e., 60 percent of remaining cancer incidence is
from EtO) for the SOCMI source category. The ample margin of safety
analysis for the SOCMI source category identified no other control
options for EtO beyond those proposed to reduce risks to an acceptable
level. For chloroprene emissions from HON-subject sources, we
identified control
[[Page 42958]]
options for equipment leaks and maintenance activities; however, the
options evaluated were found not to be cost-effective (see sections
III.C.6 and III.D.4 of the proposal preamble, 88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023). Therefore, we proposed that the requirements that we proposed to
achieve acceptable risk would also provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health (section III.B.3 of the proposal preamble, 88 FR
25080, April 25, 2023).
b. Neoprene Production Source Category
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the April 25, 2023, proposed rule for the Neoprene
Production source category subject to the P&R I NESHAP (88 FR 25080).
The results of the risk assessment for the proposal are presented
briefly in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail is in the residual
risk technical support document, Residual Risk Assessment for the
Polymers & Resins I Neoprene Production Source Category in Support of
the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0095).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.005
The results of the proposed chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment at proposal indicated that, based on estimates of current
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the source category
was 500-in-1 million, driven by chloroprene emissions from maintenance
vents (67 percent), storage vessels (11 percent), wastewater (8
percent), and equipment leaks (4 percent). At proposal, the total
estimated cancer incidence from this source category was estimated to
be 0.05 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 cancer case every 20 years.
Approximately 690,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above
1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from this source category. At proposal,
the estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category
was 0.05 for respiratory effects from chloroprene emissions.
As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, the worst-case acute HQ at
proposal was 0.3 based on the REL for chloroform. In addition, at
proposal, we did not undertake the three-tier human health risk
screening assessment that was conducted for the SOCMI source category
given that we did not identify reported persistent and bioaccumulative
HAP (PB-HAP) emissions from the Neoprene Production source category.
Instead, at proposal, we noted that we would expect dioxins likely to
be formed by combustion controls used to control chlorinated chemicals
such as chloroprene from this source category and concluded that risk
from dioxins from the Neoprene Production source category would be
lower than they are for the SOCMI source category after compliance with
the proposed dioxin limit occurs. Also, because we did not identify
reported PB-HAP emissions, we did not undertake the environmental risk
screening assessment of PB-HAP for the Neoprene Production source
category; however, we did conduct an environmental risk screening
assessment for acid gases and concluded that no ecological benchmark
was exceeded.
At proposal, the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by
the one neoprene production facility, based on whole-facility
emissions, was 600-in-1 million, with chloroprene emissions from
maintenance vents (66 percent total, 55 percent from neoprene
production sources and 11 percent from HON sources), storage vessels (9
percent total, all from neoprene production sources), equipment leaks
(7 percent total, 3 percent from neoprene production sources and 4
percent from HON sources), and wastewater (7 percent, all from neoprene
production sources) driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer risk
assessment, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI posed by whole-facility
emissions was estimated to be 0.3 (for respiratory effects) due to
chlorine emissions.
We weighed all health risk measures and factors, including those
shown in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk
[[Page 42959]]
acceptability determination and proposed that the risks posed by the
Neoprene Production source category under the current MACT provisions
are unacceptable (section III.B of the proposal preamble, 88 FR 25080,
April 25, 2023). At proposal, we identified chloroprene as the driver
of the unacceptable risk and evaluated several options to control
chloroprene emissions from (1) process vents, (2) storage vessels, and
(3) wastewater ``in chloroprene service.'' We also proposed
requirements to reduce chloroprene emissions from maintenance vents and
PRDs, as well as a facility-wide chloroprene emissions cap for all
neoprene production emission sources as a backstop.
For process vents, we proposed to define ``in chloroprene service''
in the P&R I NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.482 to mean each continuous front-end
process vent and each batch front-end process vent in a process at
affected sources producing neoprene that, when uncontrolled, contains a
concentration of greater than or equal to 1 ppmv undiluted chloroprene,
and when combined, the sum of all these process vents would emit
uncontrolled, chloroprene emissions greater than or equal to 5 lb/yr
(2.27 kg/yr).
For storage vessels of any capacity and vapor pressure in a process
at affected sources producing neoprene, we proposed to define ``in
chloroprene service'' in the P&R I NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.482 to mean that
the concentration of chloroprene of the stored liquid is at least 0.1
percent by weight. Additionally, we proposed that unless specified by
the Administrator, owners and operators may calculate the concentration
of chloroprene of the fluid stored in a storage vessel if information
specific to the fluid stored is available such as concentration data
from safety data sheets. We also proposed that the exemption for
``vessels and equipment storing and/or handling material that contains
no organic HAP, or organic HAP as impurities only'' listed in the
definition of ``storage vessel'' at 40 CFR 63.482 does not apply for
storage vessels in chloroprene service.
For wastewater, we proposed to define ``in chloroprene service'' in
the P&R I NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.482 to mean each wastewater stream that
contains total annual average concentration of chloroprene greater than
or equal to 10.0 ppmw at any flow rate.
To reduce risks from process vents in chloroprene service, we
proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.485(y)(1) and 40 CFR 63.487(j)(1) to
reduce emissions of chloroprene by either venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a non-flare control device that reduces
chloroprene by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight or to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than 5
lb/yr for all combined process vents.
To reduce risks from storage vessels in chloroprene service, we
proposed a requirement at 40 CFR 63.484(u)(1) to reduce emissions of
chloroprene by either venting emissions through a closed-vent system to
a non-flare control device that reduces chloroprene by greater than or
equal to 99.9 percent by weight or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv
for each storage vessel.
To reduce risks from wastewater in chloroprene service, we proposed
at 40 CFR 63.501(a)(10)(iv) that owners and operators of P&R I sources
producing neoprene manage and treat any wastewater streams that are
``in chloroprene service.'' We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.502(n)(8) to
prohibit owners and operators from injecting water into or disposing of
water through any heat exchange system in an EPPU if the water contains
any amount of chloroprene, has been in contact with any process stream
containing chloroprene, or the water is considered wastewater as
defined in 40 CFR 63.482.
In addition, we proposed at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(D) that any
release event from a PRD in chloroprene service is a violation of the
standard to ensure that these process vent emissions are controlled and
do not bypass controls. Also, in order to help reduce chloroprene risk
from the Neoprene Production source category to an acceptable level, we
proposed: (1) A requirement at 40 CFR 63.485(z) and 40 CFR 63.487(i)(4)
that owners and operators cannot release more than 1.0 ton of
chloroprene from all maintenance vents combined in any consecutive 12-
month period; and (2) a facility-wide chloroprene emissions cap at 40
CFR 63.483(a)(10) that owners and operators cannot release more than
3.8 tpy in any consecutive 12-month period from all neoprene production
emission sources, combined.
After implementation of the proposed controls for: (1) Process
vents, (2) storage vessels, and (3) wastewater ``in chloroprene
service,'' as well as implementation of the proposed requirements to
reduce chloroprene emissions from maintenance vents, PRDs, and all
neoprene production emission sources, combined, we proposed that the
resulting risks would be acceptable from HAP emissions from the
Neoprene Production source category. We determined at proposal that
estimated post-control risks would be reduced to 100-in-1 million (down
from 500-in-1 million) with no individuals exposed to risk levels
greater than 100-in-1 million (see section III.B.2 of the proposal
preamble, 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) from neoprene production
emission sources.
We then considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
additional standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental
effect. We noted that the EPA previously made a determination that the
standards for the Neoprene Production source category provided an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, and that the most
significant change since that determination was the new 2010 IRIS
inhalation URE for chloroprene. As such, we focused our ample margin of
safety analysis on cancer risk for chloroprene since this pollutant,
even after application of controls needed to get risks to an acceptable
level, drives cancer risk and cancer incidence (i.e., 99.995 percent of
remaining cancer incidence is from chloroprene) for the Neoprene
Production source category. To determine whether the rule provides an
ample margin of safety, we considered the chloroprene specific
requirements that we proposed to achieve acceptable risks, as well as
additional control requirements for chloroprene. The ample margin of
safety analysis found that additional chloroprene controls would not be
cost-effective, and therefore, we proposed that the requirements that
we proposed to achieve acceptable risk would also provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health (section III.B.4 of the
proposal preamble, 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). See the technical
documents titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Polymers & Resins I
Neoprene Production Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule; Analysis of Control Options for
Process Vents and Storage Vessels to Reduce Residual Risk of
Chloroprene Emissions at P&R I Affected Sources Producing Neoprene; and
Analysis of Control Options for Wastewater Streams to Reduce Residual
Risk of Chloroprene From Neoprene Production Processes Subject to P&R I
(see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0095, -0083 and -0092,
respectively).
[[Page 42960]]
2. How did the risk review change for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production
source categories?
In response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we
revised the risk assessments for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production
source categories. The comments included our approach to modeling
flares, which impacted the SOCMI baseline and post control risk
assessments, and the performance standard for process vents and storage
vessels in chloroprene service, which impacted the Neoprene Production
post control risk assessment. The following sections provide the
results of the revised risk assessments.
a. SOCMI Source Category
In response to a comment in section 1.1 of the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance
Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, we modified our approach to modeling flares for the SOCMI
source category and performed a revised risk assessment of baseline
risk (i.e., risk prior to the implementation of the control
requirements described in this final action). Based on this revised
risk assessment, the baseline MIR risk posed by the source category is
2,000-in-1 million driven by EtO emissions from PRDs (74 percent) and
equipment leaks (20 percent). The total estimated cancer incidence due
to emissions from this source category is estimated to be 2 excess
cancer cases per year. Within 50 km (~31 miles) of HON-subject
facilities, the population exposed to cancer risk greater than 100-in-1
million for HON actual and allowable emissions is approximately 83,000
people, and the population exposed to cancer risk greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million is approximately 7.17 million people. Of the 195
facilities that were assessed for risk, 8 facilities have an estimated
maximum cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million. In addition, the
maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category based
on actual and allowable emissions is estimated to be 2 (for respiratory
effects) at two different facilities (from maleic anhydride emissions
at one facility and chlorine emissions at another facility).
Approximately 83 people are estimated to be exposed to a TOSHI greater
than 1. We note that the only change in these results from the proposal
is the number of people exposed to cancer risk greater than 100-in-1
million for HON emissions, which decreased from 87,000 people at
proposal to 83,000 people here. See Table 3 of this preamble for a
summary of the HON baseline inhalation risk assessment results.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.006
We conducted a revised assessment of facility-wide (or ``whole-
facility'') risk to characterize the source category risk in the
context of whole-facility risk. The maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk posed based on whole-facility emissions is 2,000-in-1 million with
EtO emissions from PRDs (74 percent) and equipment leaks (20 percent)
from SOCMI source category emissions driving the risk. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on facility-wide emission levels is 2
excess cancer cases per year. Within 50 km (~31 miles) of HON-subject
facilities, the population exposed to cancer risk greater than 100-in-1
million for HON facility-wide emissions is approximately 90,000
[[Page 42961]]
people, and the population exposed to cancer risk greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million is approximately 8.92 million people. The maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI posed by whole-facility emissions is estimated
to be 4 (for respiratory effects) due mostly (98 percent) to emissions
from 2 facilities. Emissions from one facility contribute to 83 percent
of the TOSHI, with approximately 60 percent of the total TOSHI from
non-source category emissions of chlorine and another 15 percent from
source category emissions of chlorine. Emissions from the second
facility contribute to 15 percent of the TOSHI, with approximately 11
percent of the total TOSHI from source category emissions of acrylic
acid and 2 percent from source category emissions of acrylonitrile.
Approximately 1,100 people are estimated to be exposed to a TOSHI
greater than 1 due to whole-facility emissions. Again, we note that the
only change in these results from the proposal is the number of people
exposed to cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million, which decreased
from 95,000 people at proposal to 90,000 people here (due to our
modified approach to modeling flares, discussed above).
Finally, we conducted a revised assessment to evaluate risks after
implementation of the control requirements described in this action.
After implementation of the controls, the MIR for the SOCMI source
category is reduced to 100-in-1 million (down from 2,000-in-1 million)
with no individuals exposed to risk levels greater than 100-in-1
million from HAP emissions from the SOCMI source category, which is the
same as in the proposal. The total population exposed to risk levels
from the SOCMI source category greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
living within 50 km (~31 miles) of a facility would be reduced from
7.17 million people to 6.27 million people. The cancer incidence would
be reduced from 2 excess cancer cases per year to 0.4 excess cancer
cases per year. The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the
source category remains unchanged. Specifically, the chronic noncancer
TOSHI is estimated to be 2 (for respiratory effects) at two different
facilities (from maleic anhydride emissions at one facility and
chlorine emissions at another facility) with approximately 83 people
estimated to be exposed to a TOSHI greater than 1. The estimated worst-
case off-site acute exposures to emissions from the SOCMI source
category also remains unchanged, with a maximum modeled acute HQ of 3
based on the RELs for chlorine and acrolein. The only change in these
results from proposal is the number of people exposed to cancer risk
levels greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (6.27 million here
compared to 5.7 million at proposal) due to us not finalizing (in
response to persuasive comments received during the public comment
period) the requirement at 40 CFR 63.108(p) that would prohibit owners
and operators from sending more than 20 tons of EtO to all of their
flares combined in any consecutive 12-month period (for more
information on this, see Section IV.A.3.d.v of this preamble). Table 4
of this preamble summarizes the reduction in risks due to emissions
from the SOCMI source category based on the controls in this action.
For further details on the revised risk assessment for the SOCMI source
category, see the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
SOCMI Source Category in Support of the 2024 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 4 of this preamble also summarizes the facility-wide risks
for facilities in the SOCMI source category. The post-control facility-
wide MIR remains 2,000-in-1 million, driven by EtO emissions from
Polyether Polyols Production source category emissions sources, which
the EPA intends to address in a future action. Further, we note that
the fenceline monitoring action level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for EtO will
reduce EtO emissions and therefore risks below these levels, with the
MIR reduced to 1,000-in-1 million or lower and the number of
individuals exposed to cancer risk levels greater than 100-in-1 million
and greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million expected to be lower than
those in Table 4 of this preamble.
[[Page 42962]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.007
b. Neoprene Source Category
In response to a comment in section IV.A.3.e.i of this preamble, we
revised the performance standard for process vents and storage vessels
in chloroprene service for the Neoprene Production source category.
This revision did not change the baseline source category or facility-
wide risk assessments for the Neoprene Production source category from
proposal (see section IV.A.1.b of this preamble and Table 5 of this
preamble). The revised assessment indicated that, after implementation
of the controls, the MIR for the Neoprene Production source category is
100-in-1 million (down from 500-in-1 million in the pre-control
baseline) with no individuals exposed to risk levels greater than 100-
in-1 million from HAP emissions from the Neoprene Production source
category. This result is the same as in the proposal. The total
population exposed to risk levels from the Neoprene Production source
category greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced from
690,000 people to 58,000 people. The total estimated cancer incidence
of 0.05 drops to 0.01 excess cancer cases per year. For the risk
results estimated after implementation of controls, the two changes
from proposal are the number of people exposed to risk levels greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million (58,000 here compared to 48,000 at
proposal) and the cancer incidence (0.01 here compared to 0.008 at
proposal) from HAP emissions from the Neoprene Production source
category. All other results remained the same. Table 5 of this preamble
summarizes the reduction in cancer risks due to emissions from the
Neoprene Production source category based on the controls in this
action. For further details on the revised risk assessment for the
Neoprene Production source category, see the document titled Residual
Risk Assessment for the Polymers & Resins I Neoprene Production Source
Category in Support of the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 5 of this preamble also provides the facility-wide risks for
the facility in the Neoprene Production source category, which are of
increased importance due to the secondary
[[Page 42963]]
fenceline action level for chloroprene, before (pre-control baseline)
and after controls (post-control) of neoprene production emission
sources in this action. The post-control facility-wide MIR is 200-in-1
million, driven by chloroprene emissions from SOCMI and neoprene
production emission sources. The secondary fenceline action level of
0.3 [mu]g/m\3\ for chloroprene will further reduce chloroprene
emissions and therefore risks below these levels, with the MIR expected
to be 100-in-1 million or lower, with no individuals exposed to
lifetime cancer risk levels greater than 100-in-1 million, and the
number of people exposed to cancer risk levels greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million expected to be lower than those in Table 5 of this
preamble.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.008
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding our risk assessment for the SOCMI source
category, our risk assessment for the Neoprene Production source
category, the proposed requirements to reduce EtO emissions from the
SOCMI source category, and the proposed requirements to reduce
chloroprene emissions from the Neoprene Production source category. We
received comments in support of and against the proposed residual risk
review, the IRIS URE used in the review, and our determination that
additional controls were warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the
SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories. Other comments on
these issues, as well as the EtO IRIS URE, chloroprene IRIS URE, and on
additional issues regarding the residual risk review and the EPA's
proposed changes based on the residual risk review, can be found in the
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
a. EtO IRIS URE
We received numerous comments in support of, and in opposition to,
the EPA's use of the EtO IRIS value in assessing cancer risk for a
source category under CAA section 112(f)(2) for EtO. After careful
review of the comments, the Agency has determined that commenters did
not identify new scientific information that would alter aspects of the
EPA IRIS assessments or call into question the scientific judgments
reflected in those assessments. The EPA continues to affirm its
determination that the IRIS assessments are scientifically sound and
robust and represent the best available inhalation cancer risk values
for EtO.\34\ These comments are not summarized in this preamble.
Instead, all of these comments (related to the EPA's use of the EtO
IRIS value for CAA section 112(f)(2) risk assessment) and the EPA's
responses are in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 87 FR 77985 (Dec. 21, 2022), Reconsideration of the 2020
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final action; reconsideration of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42964]]
b. Chloroprene IRIS URE
We received numerous comments in support of, and in opposition to,
the EPA's use of the chloroprene IRIS value in assessing cancer risk
for a source category under CAA section 112(f)(2) for chloroprene.
After careful review of the comments, the Agency has determined that
commenters did not identify new scientific information that would alter
aspects of the EPA IRIS assessments or call into question the
scientific judgments reflected in those assessments. The EPA continues
to affirm its determination that the IRIS assessments are
scientifically sound and robust and represent the best available
inhalation cancer risk values for chloroprene.\35\ These comments are
not summarized in this preamble. Instead, all of these comments
(related to the EPA's use of the chloroprene IRIS value for CAA section
112(f)(2) risk assessment) and the EPA's responses are in the document
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ U.S. EPA. March 14, 2022. Response to the Request for
Correction of the 2010 IRIS Chloroprene Toxicological Review.
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/ord-22-000-2789-final-rfc-21005-response-03-01-2022-new.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Risk Assessment
Several commenters provided comments on specific facilities in the
EPA risk assessment and submitted additional data for the EPA to use
for assessing public health risks. We also received comments regarding
environmental justice, our community-based risk assessment, and the
statutory authority to assess risk. Key comments on these topics are as
follows:
i. Emissions Data
Comment: Commenters objected to the use of the 2017 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data without corrections or revisions to
model risk. These commenters requested that the EPA incorporate all of
the revisions that were provided by various companies that participated
in the EPA's January 18, 2022, CAA section 114 request. A commenter
explained that the EPA allowed facilities to update emissions values so
the EPA's assessment was representative of current operations and
improvements to both emissions controls and emissions estimation
methodologies. The commenter pointed out that although several
facilities provided revisions to the EPA for their NEI modeling file
inputs, the EPA rejected many of them. The commenter contended that if
the EPA corrected its emissions modeling file to reflect more accurate
emissions levels or upgraded emissions controls, it would determine,
for a number of facilities, that risks were acceptable, or some
emissions units were not meaningfully contributing to risk.
Commenters provided the following specific examples of corrections
facilities made to their 2017 NEI data, but were rejected by the EPA:
Huntsman Petrochemical--Conroe Plant (ID 4945611); Conroe,
TX
Used actual emissions for equipment leaks.
Used updated emission rates for holding ponds.
Used actual operation hours for pumps.
Eastman Chemical Company--Texas Operations (ID 4941511);
Longview, TX
Provided consistency with process vent stack test data.
Used refined El Paso Method response factors for cooling towers.
Used updated wastewater emissions calculations.
Used updated fugitive emissions calculations.
Sasol Chemicals--Lake Charles Chemical Complex (ID
8468011); Westlake, LA
Removed a process vent not subject to HON.
Removed a transfer rack not subject to HON.
BASF Corporation--Geismar Site (ID 8465611); Geismar, LA
Used more recent process vent stack test data.
Clear Lake Plant (ID 4057911); Pasadena, TX
Used revised stream compositions to estimate equipment leak
emissions.
Used revised calculation methodologies to estimate process vent
emissions.
Shell Chemical--Geismar Plant (ID 7445611); Geismar, LA
Installed a thermal oxidizer to reduce EtO emissions.
Used more accurate concentration data and targeted source control
efforts for wastewater.
Used more frequent connector monitoring to estimate equipment leak
emissions.
Changed the specification of residual EtO in Ethoxylate product to
reduce EtO emissions.
Installed a thermal oxidizer on some process vents.
By incorporating the above revisions, commenters insisted the
residual risk attributable to EtO would be reduced and the EPA would
conclude that risks are acceptable, even if the current IRIS value for
EtO is used.
A different commenter asserted that the EPA cannot rely on a single
year of emissions data from HON and P&R I sources to evaluate residual
risk. The commenter explained that the NEI does not provide a reliable
basis for estimating downwind concentrations of specific HAPs and the
resulting cancer or noncancer risk to the communities nearby. The
commenter said that, by the EPA's conclusions, fenceline monitoring
data has shown that modeled concentrations greatly underestimate
monitored concentrations. The commenter contended that the reliance on
2017 NEI data would contradict the EPA's own statements and would not
provide the ample margin of safety that the CAA requires. While the NEI
can be used as a starting point, the commenter recommended that the EPA
should select the highest annual emissions that each source has
reported to either the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) or the NEI within
the most recent five-year period for which data are available. The
commenter explained that TRI reports are filed annually and may provide
a more accurate picture of current emissions, and it would be
irrational to base a residual risk assessment for sources on the 2017
NEI when the same sources are reporting higher emissions in the 2017-
2021 TRI or 2020 NEI reports.
Similarly, a commenter objected to the EPA's use of the 2019
baseline actual emissions for Denka Performance Elastomers, LLC to
assess residual risk of chloroprene emissions. The commenter said that
the 2019 baseline actual emissions are substantially lower than
historic actual emission levels reported to the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) from 1991 through 2017; and the EPA's risk
report does not appear to include a description of the primary causes
for the observed 2019 emission reductions. The commenter added that the
combined average 2019 community monitored chloroprene concentration is
2.5 times the EPA's 2019 modeled average fenceline concentration (0.74
[mu]g/m\3\). The commenter also asserted that the 2019 actual annual
baseline emissions do not reflect sustainable chloroprene emission
reductions achieved through work practice standards or application of
MACT emission controls given that the average chloroprene concentration
measured at 5th Ward Elementary during the first 6 months of 2020 were
[[Page 42965]]
~52 percent higher than the measured 2019 concentrations.
Response: We disagree with commenters who object to the use of the
2017 NEI data. We relied on the January 2021 version of the 2017 NEI
dataset because it provided the best available data for EtO emissions
and other HAP emissions for the SOCMI source category and the Neoprene
Production source category covered under the P&R I NESHAP. However, in
a few instances where facility-specific data were not available or not
reflective of current controls in the 2017 NEI, we attempted to obtain
data from a more recent dataset (e.g., review of emissions inventory
data from our CAA section 114 request, more recent inventories
submitted to states, or the 2018 NEI). Where we did not have better
data, we did not update our dataset. Of note, for the one neoprene
production facility (which is also part of the SOCMI source category),
we used the 2019 emissions inventory that was provided to the EPA from
our CAA section 114 request. The NEI data were also used to develop the
other parameters needed to perform the risk modeling analysis,
including the emissions release characteristics, such as stack heights,
stack diameters, flow rates, temperatures, and emission release point
locations.
We note that the EPA has an obligation to use the best available
data for establishment of risk-based standards and generally updates
the dataset where we have sufficient rationale or improved data (e.g.,
relevant stack test data, documented process concentrations), but the
EPA has discretion to reject updated emissions estimates when
insufficient rationale and information is provided. In general, we
rejected the corrections facilities made to their 2017 NEI data (i.e.,
the corrections listed by commenters as specified in this comment
summary) due to insufficient information when numbers were updated
without a clear or substantive explanation of why emissions changed and
where EPA could not fully verify the changes. For example, many
suggested changes were due to revisions in the engineering calculation
methods with no documented detailed calculations shown. Other examples
include changing calculation input assumptions for the amount of HAP in
process streams where no source testing/sampling was provided by
commenters to support their suggested changes. Further, in many cases
we also rejected corrections listed by commenters related to pollutants
that drive cancer risks for HON (i.e., EtO) and neoprene production
sources (i.e., chloroprene) given that we contend, based on the
fenceline data, that the modeling file emissions for these pollutants
are underestimated.
Regarding the commenter's objection to the EPA's use of the 2019
baseline actual emissions for Denka Performance Elastomers, LLC to
assess residual risk of chloroprene emissions, the facility's emissions
inventory was provided to the EPA pursuant to our CAA section 114
request. In particular, the EPA requested emission inventories from the
past 5 years (i.e., 2016-2020) from the facility's operations as part
of this request. As 2017 NEI data did not represent current controls
being employed at Denka Performance Elastomers, LLC, the EPA chose to
use the most current data it had available, which is reflective of
current operations and emissions. Given the EPA's concerns about
decreased production and emissions in 2020 from the COVID-19 pandemic,
we elected to use Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC's 2019 emissions
inventory submitted as part of the CAA section 114 request in its risk
assessment for the HON and Neoprene Production source categories in
lieu of the 2017 NEI data. The EPA also reviewed chloroprene emission
records to determine whether the emissions were associated with HON
processes, neoprene processes, or other non-HON and non-neoprene
processes and updated the regulatory code in the risk modeling input
files to account for this review.
In summary, we took many steps to develop an emissions modeling
file that was representative of emissions from HON and P&R I sources,
including declining to revise data where we had insufficient rationale
or information to verify commenters' suggested changes. As described in
more detail in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking (88 FR 25080,
April 25, 2023), the EPA used many sources of information to develop
the HAP emissions inventory used to assess risks for this rulemaking,
including, but not limited to, the 2017 NEI and information gathered
under our CAA section 114 authority. The EPA typically has wide
latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve
a problem and courts generally defer to the agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to ``invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'' Sierra Club
v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``If the EPA were required
to gather exhaustive data about a problem for which gathering such data
is not yet feasible, the agency would be unable to act even if such
inaction had potentially significant consequences . . . . [A]n agency
must make a judgment in the face of a known risk of unknown degree.''
Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc., 787 F.3d. 561 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to
estimate actual emissions, see Appendix 1 of the documents titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the SOCMI Source Category in Support of
the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule and Residual Risk
Assessment for the Polymers & Resins I Neoprene Production Source
Category in Support of the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,
which are both available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Comment: A commenter contended that the EPA's inclusion of
infrequent, episodic events in their risk assessment is inappropriate.
The commenter explained that short-term or one-time emissions release
events are not representative of concentrations an individual would be
exposed to over a lifetime. Furthermore, the commenter contended that
the EPA should also have excluded EtO emissions related to SSM events
from its voluntary risk analysis because the EPA is statutorily
obligated to address SSM events under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(d)(3).
Response: If any operating period (including SSM periods) leads to
noncompliance with standards, we would not model such noncompliance for
purposes of assessing risk in the CAA section 112(f) risk review
because the agency estimates risk based on compliance with the
established NESHAP. The statute does not require the agency to
determine risk based on some assumed level of noncompliance. In
addition, the appropriate remedy for noncompliance with a NESHAP is an
enforcement action seeking to require the source to come into
compliance with the standard.
Emissions events in violation of the standards, whether or not they
are caused by malfunction events, are not considered as part of risk
analyses. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-10 (D.C.
Cir. 2016). Consistent with previous risk assessments, the EPA
considered both allowable and actual emissions in assessing chronic
inhalation exposure and risk under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the SOCMI
source category and the Neoprene Production source category covered
under the P&R I NESHAP (see,
[[Page 42966]]
e.g., the National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries [70 FR
19998-19999, April 15, 2005] and the proposed and final HON (71 FR
34428, June 14, 2006 and 71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006,
respectively)). The final rule is designed to require sources to comply
during all periods of operation. As explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), it is not generally
possible to model malfunctions in the risk assessment, because by
nature they are infrequent and unpredictable, and we generally have
insufficient information to model these types of events. The main
purpose of the risk review for these source categories is to evaluate
whether the emission limits--the ``standards promulgated pursuant to
subsection (d),'' not the non-compliance with those standards--should
be made more stringent to reduce the risk posed after compliance with
the underlying MACT standards. To the extent that a source is violating
an underlying MACT standard, it is unlikely that tightening of the
emission standard as a result of the residual risk review will avoid or
mitigate such violations. In other words, a source that is violating a
MACT emissions standard promulgated under CAA section 112(d) would not
be any more likely to be able to avoid such violations and comply with
a different presumably more stringent standard promulgated under CAA
section 112(f). Such events are violations and subject to enforcement
by the EPA, the states, or citizens, and an action for injunctive
relief is the most effective means to address violations, whether or
not they are caused by malfunctions, if an emissions event poses a
significant health or environmental risk.
The EPA notes that the final Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule
included a conservative, screening-level assessment (not a refined risk
assessment) performed using available information collection response
(ICR) data to see the impacts of certain non-routine emissions events
from PRDs and flares. [80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015] That assessment
conservatively combined routine and non-routine emissions merely to
define an upper bound of combined risk, and the EPA ultimately
concluded that risks were not significantly different, given the
uncertainties and conservative nature of the screening. In this risk
assessment, the EPA did have information on EtO emissions from PRD
events at one facility as they were reported to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The modeling indicated that emissions
from one single PRD release contributed to the majority of the cancer
risk for that facility and as such we proposed and are finalizing
requirements that any releases from PRD in EtO service are violations
of these emission standards. The EPA did not include other additional
emission estimates from non-routine PRD or flare events in the
emissions inventory that was used to assess residual risk. Other than
for highly toxic compounds such as EtO and chloroprene, we have found
that non-routine emissions from PRDs and flares in similar source
categories, including ethylene production facilities and petroleum
refineries, have not significantly affected risks (see, e.g., 85 FR
75187-75188, December 1, 2015).
ii. Environmental Justice
Comment: Commenters asserted that the EPA should continue to place
environmental justice at the forefront as it moves through the
regulatory process and ensure it takes steps to reduce impacts on
overburdened communities. A commenter pointed out that populations with
lung disease, children, people with heart disease, and others are
typically at higher risk of health harm from air pollution. The
commenter declared that the EPA must place a priority on ensuring the
current administration meets its goals on improving environmental
justice, ensuring that people who live near these facilities do not
continue to face overlapping health inequities that increase their
overall risk. Other commenters called attention to the 7 million people
who live near chemical plants who face serious cancer risk from
uncontrolled toxic air emissions and are majority Black and Brown
residents. Commenters stated that chemical manufacturing facilities are
commonly located in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods
(especially in Texas and Louisiana) and the emissions reductions from
the proposed standards will help reduce the burden on
disproportionately impacted communities.
Another commenter asserted that the EPA should strengthen the
proposed HON standards to further reduce HAP emissions with the goal of
eliminating racial disparities in exposure at all risk levels. The
commenter claimed that, even after adoption of the proposed rule, about
1.6 million people of color will still face serious cancer risk at the
1-in-1 million level simply by living within 10 km (6.2 miles) of toxic
air emissions emitted by regulated sources from chemical manufacturing
plants. The commenter contended that the EPA succeeded at identifying
environmental justice concerns, however it failed to address these
concerns. The commenter cited the EPA's environmental justice web page,
specifically the phrase ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences,''
and stated that people of color will still bear a disproportionate
share of exposure to HAPs and resulting cancer risk if the HON rule is
adopted as proposed. Furthermore, the commenter contended that the EPA
failed to cite and analyze the scientific evidence that shows that
people of color are also uniquely susceptible to the health effects of
toxic air pollutants, in addition to being more highly exposed, due to
the cumulative impacts from a combination with other psycho-social
stressors including racism, poverty, lack of access to health care and
healthful foods.
Response: The EPA is directed, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of its mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on communities with environmental justice
concerns. The EPA's environmental justice policies promote justice,
including access to health impact data, by providing information on the
types of environmental justice harms and risks that are prevalent in
communities with environmental justice concerns. No such policies
mandate consideration of any specific factors or particular outcomes
from an action, but they direct that environmental justice analysis be
performed as part of regulatory impact analysis, as appropriate, so
that the public can have this information. As noted above, the
assessment of costs and benefits described herein and in the RIA,
including the environmental justice analysis, is presented for the
purpose of providing the public with as full as possible an
understanding of the potential impacts of this final action. The EPA
notes that analysis of such impacts is distinct from the determinations
finalized in this action under CAA sections 111 and 112, which are
based solely on the statutory factors the EPA is required to consider
under those sections.
The EPA evaluated the risks for various populations as described in
the demographic analysis in the proposed rule preamble and in the
documents titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living
Near Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Operations--Final; Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) Operations:
[[Page 42967]]
Whole Facility Analysis--Final; Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Neoprene Production Operations--Final; Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Neoprene Production
Operations: Whole Facility Analysis--Final; and Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near Polymers and Resins I and Polymer
and Resins II Facilities, which are available in the docket for this
rulemaking. The EPA used its Environmental Justice Risk and Proximity
Analysis Tool (``EJ Tool'') to link HEM/AERMOD modeling results for the
HON and P&R sources with detailed census data, in order to evaluate the
distribution of cancer and noncancer risks for different demographic
factors (including racial, ethnic, age, economic, educational, and
linguistically isolated population categories). In addition to
evaluating risk distribution, this analysis also presents the
demographic composition of the population located within close
proximity (10 km) and within the overall HEM/AERMOD model domain (50
km) of the source category emissions (irrespective of risk). The
following demographic groups were included in this risk and proximity
analysis:
Total population;
White;
Black (or African American);
American Indian or Alaska Native;
Other races and multiracial;
Hispanic or Latino;
Children 17 years of age and under;
Adults 18 to 64 years of age;
Adults 65 years of age and over;
Adults without a high school diploma;
People living below the poverty level, and
Linguistically isolated people.
The total population statistics near facilities in the source
category, irrespective of risk (i.e., at all risk levels) are in the
Analysis of Demographic memorandum. These results indicate that the
demographic composition of the population located within close
proximity (10 km) and within the overall HEM/AERMOD model domain (50
km) of the source category emissions are the same or lower than the
nationwide average for all communities of environmental justice
concern.
Considering risk, the post-control scenario is expected to reduce
cancer incidence across all demographic groups including communities of
environmental justice concern. Regarding the commenter's concern about
the post-control risk exposure of people of color, the requirements for
the HON/SOCMI facilities reduce the chronic cancer risks for Black
individuals as follows: >100-in-1 million from 12,000 people to zero
people; >=50-in-1 million from 59,000 to 4,000; and >=1-in-1 million
from 694,000 to 692,000. The rule has the greatest impact at the higher
chronic cancer risk levels. Additionally, regarding concern about the
unique susceptibility of people of color to the health impacts of toxic
air pollutants, the EPA is currently exploring data and methods to make
it possible to more explicitly evaluate the role of non-chemical
stressors in an environmental justice analysis.
iii. Community-Based Risk Assessment
Comment: Commenters said that they supported the addition of the
EPA's community-based risk assessment in the rulemaking proposal given
that it reflects a commitment to evidence-based decision-making and the
well-being of communities affected by these facilities, and implored
the EPA to continue to employ rigorous community risk assessments in
future rulemakings. A commenter remarked that in addition to the
communities' benefit, workers within chemical plants would benefit as
well.
Some commenters supported the EPA expanding the community-based
risk assessment to include air toxics-related cancer risks from all
large facilities in communities in the vicinity, including sources that
would not be covered by the rule. The commenters explained that since
the public's exposure is not limited to one chemical or source category
at a time, this is a step in the right direction. The commenters
suggested these expanded community-based risk assessments be standard
practice. Other commenters proposed to expand the community-based risk
assessment to not only include all large facilities in the area, but
also include other types of sources (e.g., mobile sources), include
non-cancer endpoints (e.g., miscarriages, birth defects,
neurodevelopmental impacts), and explore other routes of exposure
beyond inhalation. Commenters claimed this could be accomplished if the
EPA went a step further than the community risk assessment and
performed a cumulative risk assessment. The commenter explained that a
cumulative risk assessment would take into account chemical and non-
chemical stressors, and how these stressors interact to promote adverse
health effects.
Other commenters asserted that the EPA should strengthen the
proposed HON standards to further reduce HAP emissions with the goal of
eliminating or reducing the number of people exposed at or above 1-in-1
million cancer risk to the maximum extent feasible. A commenter claimed
that, under the proposed rule, about 5.7 million people would still
face serious cancer risk at the 1-in-1 million level simply by living
within 50 km (31 miles) of toxic air emissions that are being emitted
by regulated sources from chemical manufacturing plants. The commenter
further claimed that, by living within 10 km (6.2 miles), there is only
a 10 percent reduction of total people at this risk level. The
commenter contended that the EPA has done more in the past,
specifically when 99 percent of the population living within 50 km had
cancer risk reduced to 1-in-1 million through the Benzene NESHAP rule.
On the contrary, a commenter argued that the EPA's ``whole-
facility'' and ``community-based'' risk assessments are irrelevant to
the proposed rule because the EPA is limited to considering only risks
associated with the source category that is the subject of the risk
assessment. The commenter added these broader risk analyses are less
reliable due to uncertainties in the data used.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' support of the community-
based risk assessment. In response to reducing the number of people
exposed at or above 1-in-1 million cancer risk to the maximum extent
feasible, the EPA's ample margin-of-safety determinations are conducted
in accord with the two-step framework set forth in the Benzene NESHAP.
When making its ample margin of safety determination, the EPA does
consider health risks and their associated uncertainties, but also
considers costs, technical feasibility, and other factors. For the
SOCMI source category, in Step 1 of the Benzene NESHAP framework, the
risks were determined to be unacceptable given all of the health
information. Standards were proposed to bring the risk down to
acceptable levels, not considering costs. Once the risks were
determined to be at acceptable levels, Step 2 of the Benzene NESHAP
framework requires the EPA to again consider health risks, but also
cost, technical feasibility, and other factors, in determining if any
additional controls should be required to achieve an ample margin of
safety. For the SOCMI source category, the EPA proposed that it was not
appropriate to require additional controls (either based on costs,
feasibility, or availability) beyond what were proposed to achieve
acceptable risks, regardless of health risks, thus we concluded that
the proposed standards to address unacceptable risks also achieved an
ample margin of safety.
[[Page 42968]]
Comment: Some commenters asserted that the community-based risk
assessments should be used when making regulatory decisions, although
there may be implementation challenges due to potential limitations in
the EPA's statutory authority. A commenter explained that the CAA
requires the EPA to investigate whether its regulations provide an
``ample margin of safety'' to protect public health, and if a community
risk assessment demonstrates that a proposed rule does not provide an
``ample margin of safety'' (because of other health stressors in the
community not captured by other risk assessments), then the EPA should
revise the proposed rule.
Response: Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use
of the two-step process for developing standards to address residual
risk and interpret ``acceptable risk'' and ``ample margin of safety''
as developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
In the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA concluded that ``With respect to
considering other sources of risk from benzene exposure and determining
the acceptable risk level for all exposures to benzene, EPA considered
this inappropriate because only the risk associated with the emissions
under consideration are relevant to the regulation being established
and, consequently, the decisions being made.'' (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989). Our authority to use the two-step process set forth in the
Benzene NESHAP, and to consider a variety of measures of risk to public
health, is discussed more thoroughly in the preamble to the proposed
rule (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). Nothing in the CAA or the
Benzene NESHAP in any way forecloses us from considering facility-wide
risks in making a determination under CAA section 112(f)(2), as such
information can constitute relevant health information.
Although not appropriate for consideration in the determination of
acceptable risk presented by just source category emissions, we note
that contributions to risk from sources outside the source category
under review could be one of the relevant factors considered in the
ample margin of safety determination, along with cost and economic
factors, technological feasibility and other factors. For the SOCMI
source category, the EPA proposed that it was not appropriate to
require additional controls (either based on costs, feasibility, or
availability) beyond what were proposed to achieve acceptable risks,
regardless of health risks, thus we concluded that the proposed
standards to address unacceptable risk posed by emissions from the
SOCMI source category also achieved an ample margin of safety.
The development of community-based estimates provides additional
information about the potential cumulative risks in the vicinity of the
RTR sources, as one means of informing potential risk-based decisions
about the RTR source category in question. We recognize that, because
these risk estimates were derived from facility-wide emissions
estimates which have not generally been subjected to the same level of
engineering review as the source category emission estimates, they may
be less certain than our risk estimates for the source category in
question, but they remain important for providing context as long as
their uncertainty is taken into consideration in the process.
iv. Statutory Authority To Conduct Risk Assessment
Comment: Commenters argued that the EPA is obligated to consider
costs as part of their optional second residual risk review. Some
commenters said that the EPA's refusal to consider costs of the
controls proposed to reduce EtO emissions is beyond the EPA's statutory
authority, and is arbitrary and capricious. The commenters said that
unless specifically instructed otherwise, rational decision making
requires the consideration of cost. The commenters contended that
unless a statute precludes consideration of costs, ``[c]onsideration of
cost reflects the understanding that reasonable regulation ordinarily
requires paying attention to the advantages and the disadvantages of
agency decisions.'' Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 754 (2015). Some
commenters added that the Supreme Court has before held that
consideration of costs must occur when the EPA finds that it is
``appropriate and necessary'' to regulate emissions under the CAA.
Michigan v. EPA., 576 U.S. 743, (2015) (holding costs must be
considered when determining whether it is ``appropriate and necessary''
to regulate stationary sources of fossil-fuel fired power plants under
CAA section 7412(n)). A commenter opined that because it would be
``unreasonable to read an instruction to an administrative agency to
determine whether `regulation is appropriate and necessary' as an
invitation to ignore costs,'' similarly, it would be unreasonable here
for the EPA to ignore costs after it discretionally determined that it
was ``necessary'' to ``revisit and revise'' the residual risk
threshold.
The commenters said the residual risk provisions, by reference to
the Benzene NESHAP, allow the EPA to exclude costs only in initially
determining acceptable risk, but in setting an ample margin of safety,
costs are to be considered. The commenters contended that if the EPA
has authority to conduct subsequent residual risk findings (which the
commenters dispute), then the entire exercise is a secondary one that
must take cost into consideration. A commenter explained that under
most circumstances under CAA section 112, even when as an initial step,
consideration of cost may be prohibited, the CAA requires consideration
of cost in subsequent steps and Congress has constrained circumstances
under which cost cannot be considered; therefore, the EPA is acting
contrary to Congressional intent by attempting to expand its authority
to conduct a risk review more than once, which is the only way in which
the EPA could attempt to revise the NESHAP without considering costs.
Commenters cited the following court rulings and other references
to support their view that the EPA is obligated to consider costs as
part of their optional second residual risk review:
White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. E.P.A., 748 F.3d 1222
(2014) (Kavanaugh concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing
and quoting RICHARD L. REVESZ & MICHAEL A. LIVERMORE, RETAKING
RATIONALITY 12 (2008) (``For certain kinds of governmental programs,
the use of cost-benefit analysis is a requirement of basic
rationality.'').
Richard J. Pierce, Jr., The Appropriate Role of Costs in
Environmental Regulation, 54 ADMIN. L.REV. 1237, 1247 (2002) (``All
individuals and institutions naturally and instinctively consider costs
in making any important decision . . . . [I]t is often impossible for a
regulatory agency to make a rational decision without considering costs
in some way.'')
the Supreme Court pointed out in Entergy Corp. v.
Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208, 224 (2009), that the EPA had long
determined that it was unreasonable to interpret a statute in a way
``as requiring use of technology whose cost is wholly disproportionate
to the environmental benefit to be gained.'' (quoting In re Public
Service Co. of New Hampshire, 1 E.A.D. 332, 340 (1977)). While Entergy
Corp. was in the context of the Clean Water Act, the same logic applies
equally here. Justice Breyer reiterated in Entergy Corp., agencies
should not read statutes in a way that forbids cost-benefit comparisons
when the language does not require doing so. As Justice Breyer
explained, not only would that be ``difficult to enforce'' because
``every
[[Page 42969]]
real choice requires a decisionmaker to weigh advantages against
disadvantages, and disadvantages can be seen in terms of (often
quantifiable) costs,'' but such ``absolute prohibition would bring
about irrational results.''
the Supreme Court has concluded that ``[n]o regulation is
`appropriate' if it does significantly more harm than good,'' and
reminds agencies that ``[c]onsideration of cost reflects the
understanding that reasonable regulation ordinarily requires paying
attention to the advantages and the disadvantages of agency decisions
[reflecting] the reality that too much wasteful expenditure devoted to
one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to
deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.'' Michigan
v. EPA at 752-53 (internal quotations omitted); see also id. (Kagan, J.
dissenting) (``Cost is almost always a relevant--and usually, a highly
important--factor in regulation'')
Response: The EPA disagrees that it was unconditionally obligated
to consider costs in this CAA section 112(f)(2) risk review. As
explained in response to a comment in section 1.5 of the document
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking, the EPA has the authority to conduct an additional
risk review, particularly where new information has come to light
making a prior risk review unreliable. New information became available
about both chloroprene and EtO in 2010 \36\ and 2016,\37\ respectively.
After the EPA completed development of the IRIS inhalation URE for
chloroprene in 2010 and updated the IRIS inhalation URE for EtO in
2016, the EPA learned that chloroprene and EtO were more toxic than
previously known. These updates came after the first risk reviews were
conducted for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production (within the P&R I
NESHAP) source categories and therefore prompted the EPA to reevaluate
residual cancer risks caused by EtO and chloroprene emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ U.S. EPA. Toxicological Review of Chloroprene (CASRN 126-
99-8) In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). September 2010. EPA/635/R-09/010F.
Available at: https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/1021tr.pdf
\37\ U.S. EPA. Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Ethylene Oxide (CASRN 75-21-8) In Support of Summary Information on
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). December 2016. EPA/
635/R-16/350Fa. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/1025tr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reevaluation meant that reconsideration of our original
decisions under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the SOCMI and Neoprene
Production source categories is warranted, beginning with whether the
existing standards reduce risks to acceptable levels under the Benzene
NESHAP. Under the Benzene NESHAP, this meant going through both the (1)
acceptability and (2) ample margin of safety steps of the section
112(f)(2) analysis. Only by going through both analytical steps anew
could the EPA account for the corrected scientific understanding of
risks from these HAP and conduct the appropriately updated residual
risk reviews.
Under the approach outlined in the Benzene NESHAP, National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (54 FR 38,044, September 14, 1989), the EPA evaluates residual
risk and develops standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) in two steps,
as some commenters correctly stated. See Proposed Rule, 88 FR at
25,089. In step (1), the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable
``consider[ing] all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual
lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR
at 38,045. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the
emissions standards required to reduce risk to an acceptable level
without considering costs. In step (2), the EPA considers whether the
emissions standards provide an ``ample margin of safety'' to protect
public health ``in consideration of all health information, including
the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1
million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant
to each particular decision.'' Id. (emphasis added). The EPA must then
promulgate or revise emission standards necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the
standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any
revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we
consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent,
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
It is true that CAA section 112(f)(2) does not contain words
declaring that consideration of costs in assessing risk acceptability
is prohibited. However, this Benzene NESHAP approach was incorporated
by Congress into CAA section 112(f)(2) in the 1990 CAA amendments and
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008); Proposed Rule, 88 FR at 25,089. The approach is both rational
and reasonable. While the statute does not expressly forbid
consideration of costs at step (1), the Benzene NESHAP which the EPA
promulgated in response to the D.C. Circuit's ruling in NRDC v. EPA,
824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Vinyl Chloride),\38\ and Congress's
endorsement of that approach in enacting the 1990 Amendments to section
112, have long been understood to prohibit consideration of costs at
step (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Vinyl Chloride decision required the EPA to exercise
its section 112 authority (under the pre-1990 Amendments then in
effect) in two steps: first, by determining a ``safe'' or
``acceptable'' level of risk considering only health factors; and,
second, by setting a standard that provides an ``ample margin of
safety,'' in which costs, feasibility, and other relevant factors
also may be considered. 824 F.2d at 1164-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new information gained by the 2010 chloroprene and 2016 EtO
IRIS inhalation UREs warranted a complete re-analysis of both steps for
the HON and Neoprene Production rules. The EPA therefore started back
at step (1), acceptability, in which costs are not considered. Starting
back at step (1) was essential to ensure that the risks due to EtO and
chloroprene were being adequately addressed given the EPA's new
understanding that exposure to EtO and chloroprene poses greater risk
than was previously known. The EPA could not simply adjust the risk
review at the step (2) ample margin of safety analysis to correct any
errors and account for the new understanding. As explained elsewhere in
this preamble, the EPA has analyzed acceptability of risks from HON and
Neoprene Production processes under step (1) and identified controls
necessary to achieve acceptability. Moreover, the EtO and chloroprene
emission standards for HON and Neoprene Production processes that the
EPA is promulgating are all necessary to reduce risks from HAP
emissions from the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories to
acceptable levels, and the EPA is not adopting further source category-
[[Page 42970]]
specific emission standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) under step (2)
of the Benzene NESHAP. Consequently, the EPA does not agree that the
cases commenters cited require that the EPA must or even can consider
costs in determining these risk acceptability-based standards for
process emissions from these source categories.
Comment: A commenter argued that the EPA should not be carrying out
a cost-blind residual risk review for chloroprene when other options to
address air toxics risks are available that do take costs into
consideration. The commenter pointed out that on May 6, 2021, the EPA's
Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Report No. 21-P-0129: EPA
Should Conduct New Residual and Technology Reviews for Chloroprene- and
Ethylene July 7, 2023, 61 Oxide-Emitting Source Categories to protect
Human Health (``OIG Report''). The commenter said that the EPA's Office
of Air and Radiation (OAR) submitted three responses to the OIG Report
in which they reiterated: (1) That they are not statutorily required to
conduct another residual risk review of chloroprene and (2) that they
have multiple options to address risks associated with chloroprene that
do not require a cost-blind residual risk review. The commenter stated
that OAR explained to OIG that it can consider risks during a
technology review and that the EPA has ``multiple tools available under
the CAA for addressing risk from emissions of air toxics'' besides
discretionary residual risk reviews under CAA section 112(f).
Other commenters cited various court rulings to support their view
that the EPA should withdraw the risk review requirements and repropose
with cost consideration under the technology review provisions of the
CAA:
As Justice Kagan noted: ``Unless Congress provides
otherwise, an agency acts unreasonably in establishing `a standard-
setting process that ignore[s] economic considerations.' '' Id. (Kagan,
J. dissenting) (quoting Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 670 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring in part and
concurring in judgment)).'' Commenters argue that the approach that
Justice Kagan warned against is exactly what the EPA has done here.
the EPA has acted unreasonably, particularly as ``Federal
administrative agencies are required to engage in ``reasoned decision-
making.'' Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359,
374(1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). ``Not only must an
agency's decreed result be within the scope of its lawful authority,
but the process by which it reaches that result must be logical and
rational.''
It follows that agency action is lawful only if it rests
``on a consideration of the relevant factors.'' State Farm 463 U.S. at
43, (internal quotation marks omitted).'' Michigan, 576 U.S. at 750.
Commenters argue one of those factors is cost.
Response: As explained above, cost is considered in one of the two
steps that the EPA undertakes during a residual risk review under
112(f)(2). The residual risk review is not ``cost-blind.''
The commenter quotes specific portions of OAR's response to OIG,
which may not give the full picture of OAR's position in its response.
For completion, the response stated:
[I]n those situations where we are reviewing a NESHAP and there is
new information on the toxicity of a given chemical of interest (and
the statutorily-required residual risk review has already been
completed for that source category), we will determine how to best
consider the new risk information in the current review. As described
in the roadmaps discussed in our response to Recommendation 2, we will
evaluate the multiple tools available under the CAA for addressing risk
from emissions of air toxics. Those tools include conducting a
discretionary residual risk assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2),
conducting a review under CAA section 112(d)(6), and/or establishing
new standards for unregulated pollutants if the original NESHAP did not
regulate all HAP. We intend to use these tools to reduce risk--
consistent with the law and in a sequence that provides an ample margin
of safety to protect public health.
(Emphasis in original.) \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EPA OAR, Response #3 to OIG Final Report at 2-3 (June 1,
2022) (available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/_epaoig_21-P-0129_Agency_Response2.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As OAR stated in the above response, there are multiple tools
available to ``address'' risk from emissions of air toxics, and OAR
said it would evaluate those tools, which may include a CAA section
112(d)(6) review. But the EPA did not say that it commonly
``considers'' risk in a CAA section 112(d)(6) review, or that risk is a
factor that must drive a regulatory decision under CAA section
112(d)(6). The EPA considers the public health and environmental risks
from HAP emissions during the CAA section 112(f) phase of regulation,
when the EPA considers any residual risk after technology-based CAA
section 112(d)(2) standards are implemented. However, when the EPA
revises standards under CAA section 112(d)(6) and imposes additional
controls or work practice standards that lead to HAP emission
reductions, risk from those HAP emission reductions is inherently
addressed to some degree given that reduced emissions will correlate to
some degree of reduced risk. While the EPA does not have to directly
consider risk in the CAA section 112(d)(6) analysis, risks are lowered
when additional emission controls are imposed as a result of those
standards.
However, in the case of the SOCMI and Neoprene Production
standards, the risks were so significantly affected by the IRIS values
for EtO and chloroprene that it became clear that a full risk review
under CAA section 112(f)(2) was warranted, rather than relying on
ancillary risk benefits that might result from conducting only a CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review. Consequently, under the Benzene
NESHAP approach incorporated by CAA section 112(f), as explained above,
we had to re-assess whether the existing standards were sufficiently
protective, and we determined that they did not reduce risks to
acceptable levels. The standards adopted in the final rulemaking are
based on what is necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels under
the Benzene NESHAP, and therefore may not be based on consideration of
costs. However, our rulemaking analyses do estimate the costs that will
result from compliance with the standards, even if that information did
not drive regulatory decisions. For details on the assumptions and
methodologies used in the costs and impacts analyses, see the technical
documents titled Analysis of Control Options for Process Vents and
Storage Vessels to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI
Source Category for Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control
Options for Equipment Leaks to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide
in the SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of
Control Options for Heat Exchange Systems to Reduce Residual Risk of
Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to
HON; Analysis of Control Options for Wastewater Streams to Reduce
Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for
Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control Options for Flares to
Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for
Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control Options for Process Vents
and Storage Vessels to Reduce Residual Risk of Chloroprene Emissions at
P&R I
[[Page 42971]]
Affected Sources Producing Neoprene; and Analysis of Control Options
for Wastewater Streams to Reduce Residual Risk of Chloroprene From
Neoprene Production Processes Subject to P&R I (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0074, -0003, -0071, -0087, -0070, -0083 and -0092,
respectively).
Comment: A commenter argued that the Agency arbitrarily fails to
properly implement the authority it claims to possess. The commenter
pointed out that the EPA does not limit its review to chloroprene and
EtO (e.g., in presenting the results of its risk assessment, the EPA
concludes that maleic anhydride, chlorine, acrylic acid, and
acrylonitrile present the highest acute inhalation risks for the SOCMI
source category) even though the EPA claims a second residual risk
review is only warranted for chloroprene and EtO because of the IRIS
reassessments. The commenter claimed that the EPA's approach is
arbitrary and unfounded because the Agency asserts no basis for
conducting a new risk review for any pollutants other than chloroprene
and EtO.
Response: As explained above in response to another comment in this
section of this preamble, new information about risks of chloroprene
and EtO exposure has come to light, warranting an updated residual risk
review for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production (within the P&R I NESHAP)
source categories. This risk review was conducted in accordance with
longstanding, congressionally and judicially approved steps laid out in
the 1989 Benzene NESHAP. Those steps account for the risk due to
emissions of all HAP from a source category and the risk review is not
limited to one or two HAP solely because updated risk information is
available for only two HAP. Therefore, in order to make risk
acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations for each source
category, we assessed risks for all HAP emitted by the SOCMI and
Neoprene Production source categories.
Importantly, though, the EPA is only imposing new standards under
CAA section 112(f)(2) to control EtO and chloroprene emissions. The EPA
is not imposing CAA section 112(f)(2) standards to control maleic
anhydride, chlorine, acrylic acid, or acrylonitrile in this rulemaking
and we found no new information regarding the health effects associated
with these pollutants (like the new information on chloroprene and EtO)
that would lead us to amend standards for these pollutants under CAA
section 112(f)(2). Commenters do not provide any explanation,
therefore, of how they are affected or harmed by the EPA analyzing
other HAP during this risk review. We have concluded that unacceptable
risk posed by emissions from these source categories is driven by
emissions of EtO and chloroprene and we imposed additional standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) to reduce emissions of EtO and chloroprene
to an acceptable level.
Comment: A commenter argued that given the EPA's failure to
articulate a legal basis for its position to conduct a second risk
review violates the Agency's obligation to set forth in a proposed rule
``the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying
the proposed rule'' according to CAA section 307(d)(3)(c), the
commenter did not have adequate notice or an opportunity to comment on
this key issue, which plainly is of central relevance to the rule. The
commenter asserted that the EPA must supplement the current proposal to
provide the required legal analysis and provide a reasonable
opportunity for public comment.
Response: The EPA explained in the proposed rule that we were
undertaking an updated residual risk review for the SOCMI and Neoprene
Production (within the P&R I NESHAP) source categories ``due to the
development of the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
inhalation unit risk estimate (URE) for chloroprene in 2010'' and
because ``in 2016, the EPA updated the IRIS inhalation URE for EtO.''
88 FR at 25083-84.
The EPA explained that, due to the updated chloroprene information,
``the EPA conducted a CAA section 112(f) risk review for the SOCMI
source category and Neoprene Production source category. In the first
step of the CAA section 112(f)(2) determination of risk acceptability
for this rulemaking, the use of the 2010 chloroprene risk value
resulted in the EPA identifying unacceptable residual cancer risk
caused by chloroprene emissions from affected sources producing
neoprene subject to P&R I[.] Consequently, the proposed amendments to
P&R I address the EPA review of additional control technologies, beyond
those analyzed in the technology review conducted for P&R I, for one
affected source producing neoprene and contributing to unacceptable
risk.'' 88 FR at 25083-84.
Similarly, the EPA explained that, due to updated EtO information,
``In the first step of the CAA section 112(f)(2) determination of risk
acceptability for this rulemaking, the use of the updated 2016 EtO risk
value resulted in the EPA identifying unacceptable residual cancer risk
driven by EtO emissions from HON processes. Consequently, the proposed
amendments to the HON also address the EPA review of additional control
technologies, beyond those analyzed in the technology review conducted
for the HON, focusing on emissions sources emitting EtO that contribute
to unacceptable risk.'' 88 FR at 25084.
The EPA also explained that ``even though we do not have a
mandatory duty to conduct repeated residual risk reviews under CAA
section 112(f)(2), we have the authority to revisit any rulemaking if
there is sufficient evidence that changes within the affected industry
or significant new scientific information suggesting the public is
exposed to significant increases in risk as compared to the previous
risk assessments prepared for earlier rulemakings.'' 88 FR at 25090.
See also 88 FR at 25111 (``Considering all of the health risk
information and factors discussed above, particularly the high MIR for
both the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories, the EPA
proposes that the risks for both source categories are unacceptable. .
. . [W]hen risks are unacceptable, under the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
approach and CAA section 112(f)(2)(A), the EPA must first determine the
emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level,
and then determine whether further HAP emissions reductions are
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.'').
Finally, the scientific and technical bases for the EPA's proposed
action are voluminously presented in the numerous supporting memoranda
contained in the public docket for the proposed rulemaking. See, e.g.,
the documents titled Residual Risk Assessment for the SOCMI Source
Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule; Residual Risk Assessment for the Polymers & Resins I Neoprene
Production Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule; Analysis of Control Options for Process Vents and
Storage Vessels to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI
Source Category for Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control
Options for Equipment Leaks to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide
in the SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of
Control Options for Heat Exchange Systems to Reduce Residual Risk of
Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to
HON; Analysis of Control Options for Wastewater Streams to
[[Page 42972]]
Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for
Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control Options for Flares to
Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for
Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control Options for Process Vents
and Storage Vessels to Reduce Residual Risk of Chloroprene Emissions at
P&R I Affected Sources Producing Neoprene; Analysis of Control Options
for Wastewater Streams to Reduce Residual Risk of Chloroprene From
Neoprene Production Processes Subject to P&R I; and Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Polymers and Resins I
and Polymer and Resins II Facilities (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0085, -0095, -0074, -0003, -0071, -0087, -0070, -0083, -0092,
and -0060, respectively). Also see the documents titled Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) Operations--Final; Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Operations:
Whole Facility Analysis--Final; Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Neoprene Production Operations--Final; and
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Neoprene
Production Operations: Whole Facility Analysis--Final, which are
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA clearly did articulate its legal position in a manner that
was sufficient to provide the public a meaningful opportunity to
comment on the basis for its action, as evidenced by the EPA's receipt
of comments from several commenters discussing the EPA's use of its CAA
section 112(f)(2) authority to conduct an updated residual risk review
and discussing the merits of the risk review. As explained in this
section, commenters argued on both sides: that the EPA did not have
authority to conduct the risk review in this rule, or that the EPA must
conduct additional risk reviews during every 112(d)(6) technology
review. (See other responses above in this section of this preamble.)
While comments may not provide the only evidence that a point was
adequately noticed, ``insightful comments may be reflective of notice
and may be adduced as evidence of its adequacy.'' Horsehead Dev. Co. v.
Browner, 16 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Nat'l Rest. Ass'n v. Solis, 870
F. Supp. 2d 42, 52-53 & n.6 (D.D.C. 2012). With thoughtful comments
from both sides of the issue received here, the EPA has met this test.
d. HON Rule Changes Related To EtO
i. Process Vents and Storage Vessels in EtO Service
Comment: A commenter said that they supported the EPA's proposed
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for process vents and the
sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators to
demonstrate that each process vent does, or does not, meet the
definition. However, other commenters requested the following
clarifications or revisions to the proposed text:
the EPA should revise the definition of ``in ethylene
oxide service'' and the corresponding procedures in 40 CFR 63.109(a)
for determining whether a process vent is in EtO service so that the
corresponding 1 ppmv cut-off for process vents in the definition of
``in ethylene oxide service'' applies on an annual average basis. The
commenter provided numerous examples showing that EtO concentration in
the process or the vent stream can vary over time depending on what
material is being produced.
the EPA should clarify that the 5 lb/yr EtO mass emission
rate limit for combined process vents as specified in 40 CFR
63.113(j)(2), 40 CFR 63.124(a)(4) and (a)(4)(iii), and within the
definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' should be on a CMPU-by-CMPU
basis.
the EPA should clarify at 40 CFR 63.109(a) that the
location to measure the EtO concentration for process vents should be
after the last recovery device (if any recovery devices are present)
but prior to the inlet of any control device that is present and prior
to release to the atmosphere to be consistent with requirements
elsewhere in the HON (e.g., see 40 CFR 63.115(a)).
Commenters requested that the EPA revise the concentration
threshold for process vents from 1 ppmv to 3 ppmv or greater and only
require additional control of process vents that total 100 pounds per
year or more on an affected source basis. The commenters argued these
thresholds would alleviate detection limit challenges; and that process
vents with concentrations and mass emissions rates below these
thresholds do not significantly contribute to unacceptable risk. A
commenter pointed out that moisture and interferents will prevent
obtaining measurements down to 1 ppmv in certain streams such as those
associated with vacuum distillation operations where motive force is
provided by steam jet exhaust, and the emission point contains
primarily steam with potentially trace levels of organic HAP, or in
streams at the inlet to control devices.
Response: We acknowledge a commenter's support of the definition
for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for process vents and the procedures
for owners and operators to demonstrate that process vent does, or does
not, meet the definition. However, we are not revising the definition
in the final rule as requested by other commenters such that it applies
on an annual average basis. We also disagree with the commenters'
request to revise the concentration threshold for process vents from 1
ppmv to 3 ppmv or greater and only require additional control of
process vents that total 100 pounds per year or more on an affected
source basis.
While we agree that the EtO concentration in the process or the
vent stream can vary over time depending on what material is being
produced, we consider the corresponding 1 ppmv EtO cut-off for process
vents reasonable in terms of being measurable and quantifiable, and
also appropriate for the vent stream characteristics we intended to
regulate that resulted in risk reductions. We acknowledge every
facility is different. Some facilities may pose less risks than others,
but in a densely populated area with a nearby receptor and under
specific conditions, the risks could none-the-less be unacceptable. In
order to be protective of public health, we took a conservative
approach.
We note that several facilities reported (in response to our CAA
section 114 request) EtO measurements below 1 ppm; one of these
measurements is equivalent to greater than 0.5 lb/hr and all other
measurements below 1 ppm exhibited mass rates less (sometimes much
less) than 0.02 lb/hr. Given that there do not appear to be detection
limit challenges based on this recent stack test data, we disagree with
the commenters' assertion that there is a need to alleviate detection
limit challenges. Additionally, the 1 ppmv undiluted EtO threshold is
also used in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
(MON) and we are not aware of any detection limit issues within that
source category.
With regard to a commenter's request that the 5 lb/yr EtO mass
threshold for combined process vents be on a CMPU-by-CMPU basis, we
agree that this was our intent; therefore, we have clarified this in
the final rule at 40 CFR 63.113(j)(2), 40 CFR 63.124(a)(4) and
(a)(4)(iii), and within the definition of ``in ethylene oxide
service.'' Finally, as requested by a commenter, we have clarified at
40 CFR 63.109(a)(3) that the
[[Page 42973]]
sampling site shall be after the last recovery device (if any recovery
devices are present) but prior to the inlet of any control device that
is present and prior to release to the atmosphere.
Comment: Commenters said that they supported the EPA's proposed
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for storage vessels and
the sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators to
demonstrate that each storage vessel does, or does not, meet the
definition. However, some commenters requested the following
clarifications or revisions to the proposed text:
the EPA should revise the definition of ``in ethylene
oxide service'' so that the corresponding the 0.1 percent by weight
threshold for storage vessels in the definition of ``in ethylene oxide
service'' applies on an annual average basis. The commenter pointed out
that this is already allowed for equipment leaks at 40 CFR
63.109(c)(1); therefore, the EPA could amend the language in 40 CFR
63.109(b) to consistent with 40 CFR 63.109(c).
the EPA should add more flexibility to the alternative
approach in 40 CFR 63.109(b)(2) to allow for good engineering judgment
and process knowledge similar to the language in 40 CFR 63.109(c)(2)
for equipment leaks.
the EPA should revise the definition to refer to ``the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.109'' instead of ``sampling and
analysis'' to reduce confusion and eliminate the potential safety
risks/costs of unnecessary sampling; it is not until proposed 40 CFR
63.109(b)(2) that the reader is informed that one is allowed to use
information specific to the stored fluid to calculate the concentration
of E.O., which does not necessitate sampling.
A commenter also pointed out that the EPA's proposed definition
does not comport with the definition discussed in the Agency's
memorandum which states: ``For storage vessels of any capacity and
vapor pressure, ``in ethylene oxide service'' means that the
concentration of ethylene oxide within the tank liquid is greater than
or equal to 1 ppmw. These definitions exclude ethylene oxide that is
present as an impurity . . .'' (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0730-0074). The commenter requested that the EPA confirm the threshold
for storage vessels is 0.1 percent by weight, as stated in the red-line
strike-out version of the proposed rule text, and that the proposed
definition should not include the phrase: ``The exemption for ``vessels
storing organic liquids that contain organic hazardous air pollutants
only as impurities'' listed in the definition of ``storage vessel'' in
this section does not apply for storage vessels that may be in ethylene
oxide service.'' Commenters added that the EPA should properly justify
the 0.1 percent by weight threshold, or revise the threshold to
eliminate unnecessary additional control of sources that do not pose
unacceptable risk. The commenters asserted that the risks attributable
to storage vessels are those storing high concentrations of EtO, not
vessels storing low concentration materials, making the EPA's proposed
0.1 percent by weight threshold arbitrary. To address the unnecessary
burden imposed by the EPA's proposal, the commenters requested the EPA
revise its analysis such that only those storage vessels that
significantly contribute to risk (i.e., those storing 100 percent EtO)
be subject to additional control requirements for EtO.
Response: The EPA acknowledges a commenter's support of the
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for storage vessels and
the procedures for owners and operators to demonstrate that each
storage vessel does, or does not, meet the definition. However, we are
not revising the definition in the final rule as requested by other
commenters such that it applies on an annual average basis; these
commenters did not provide justification for why this revision is
needed. We are finalizing the definition as proposed such that a
storage vessel is considered in EtO service anytime it is storing a
liquid that is at least 0.1 percent by weight of (or 1,000 ppmw) EtO.
We consider the 0.1 percent by weight of EtO threshold reasonable in
terms of being measurable and quantifiable, and also appropriate for
the vent stream characteristics we intended to regulate that resulted
in risk reductions. We acknowledge every facility is different. Some
facilities may pose less risks than others, but in a densely populated
area with a nearby receptor and under specific conditions, the risks
could none-the-less be unacceptable. In order to be protective of
public health, we took a conservative approach. We note that a 1,000
ppmw threshold corresponds to the chemical inventory reporting
requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act and other supplier notification requirements, so facilities should
have knowledge of the amount of EtO stored from these sources.
Regarding the inconsistency between language used in docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0074 versus language used in the red-line strike-
out version of the proposed rule text, we have determined that the
language used in docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0074 is an error. In
other words, we are finalizing the red-line strike-out version of the
proposed rule text such that the definition does include the phrase:
``The exemption for ``vessels storing organic liquids that contain
organic hazardous air pollutants only as impurities'' listed in the
definition of ``storage vessel'' in this section does not apply for
storage vessels that may be in ethylene oxide service.'' While we
believe that emissions from vessels storing impurity levels of EtO are
very low and do not result in additional risk, we are not providing
additional constraints or clarifications on the determination of the
threshold (e.g., providing averaging times) because we anticipate that
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and supplier
notifications will generally be the basis for applicability
determinations.
Also, we disagree with the commenters' request to add more
flexibility to the alternative approach in 40 CFR 63.109(b)(2) for
storage vessels to be consistent with the equipment leaks provision at
40 CFR 63.109(c). We believe the rule is already clear regarding
determining whether storage vessels are ``in ethylene oxide service.''
In order to determine the requirements for storage vessels in EtO
service, facilities must look at both the definition of ``in ethylene
oxide service'' and the requirements in 40 CFR 63.109 together. The
definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' lets the owner or operator
designate a storage vessel based on process knowledge; however, if an
owner or operator wants to say a storage vessel is not in EtO service,
they must use the procedures in 40 CFR 63.109(b). The rule at 40 CFR
63.109(b)(2) already explicitly allows an avenue for an owner or
operator to calculate the concentration of EtO of the fluid stored in
the storage vessels if information specific to the fluid stored is
available which includes data based on safety data sheets.
With regard to a commenter's request to change the phrasing of
``sampling and analysis is performed as specified in Sec. 63.109'' to
``the procedures specified in Sec. 63.109 are performed'' within the
definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' for storage vessels, we
agree this suggested language is more clear and have revised it in the
final rule.
Comment: A commenter said they support the EPA's proposed rule text
at 40 CFR 63.113(j) that requires owners and operators to reduce
emissions of EtO from process vents in EtO service by either: (1)
Venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces EtO by greater than or
[[Page 42974]]
equal to 99.9 percent by weight, to a concentration less than 1 ppmv
for each process vent, or to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process
vents; or (2) venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare
meeting the proposed operating and monitoring requirements for flares
in NESHAP subpart F. The commenter also said they support the EPA's
proposed rule text at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5) that requires owners and
operators to reduce emissions of EtO from storage vessels in EtO
service by either: (1) Venting emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device that reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9
percent by weight or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each
storage vessel vent; or (2) venting emissions through a closed-vent
system to a flare meeting the proposed operating and monitoring
requirements for flares in NESHAP subpart F.
However, other commenters argued that the EPA should disallow the
use of flares to control EtO from process vents and storage vessels
given that flares can only reduce EtO emissions by, at most, 98.6
percent; and therefore, cannot meet the proposed 99.9 percent by weight
EtO reduction requirement. The commenters contended that the EPA
arbitrarily and unlawfully assumes HON sources will use non-flare
control devices instead of flares to reduce EtO from process vents and
storage vessels. The commenters added that the Agency's supposition
that it is ``likely'' that sources will not use flares given the flare
cap provides no rational or substantial basis for assuming 99.9 percent
destruction of EtO from process vents and storage vessels. A commenter
contended that the difference between using a flare and a non-flare
control device to reduce emissions of EtO from process vents and
storage vessels could be significant, and provided an example using an
emissions inventory from 2021 for Indorama's Port Neches plant showing
this. A commenter asserted that requiring HON sources to use non-flare
controls (and disallowing the use of flares) to control EtO from
process vents and storage vessels would not result in additional costs
beyond those that the EPA has already predicted, since the EPA's cost-
effectiveness analysis assumed that all 12 HON facilities that need to
control EtO from process vents and storage vessels to reduce risk to
acceptable levels would install thermal oxidizers.
The commenters added that unlike the HON, the EPA in its risk
proposal for Neoprene Production processes subject to the P&R I NESHAP
(appropriately) proposes to require use of non-flare controls that
reduce chloroprene by 99.9 percent. The commenters asserted that if the
EPA were to finalize its proposal to allow HON sources to use flares to
reduce EtO from process vents and storage vessels (and thus allow
destruction efficiencies lower than 99.9 percent), this differing
treatment of risk-driving HAPs from HON and P&R I vents and storage
vessels would render the Agency's final rule arbitrary and
capricious.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The commenter cited Transactive Corp. v. United States, 91
F.3d 232, 237 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (``A long line of precedent has
established that an agency action is arbitrary when the agency
offered insufficient reasons for treating similar situations
differently.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We acknowledge a commenter's support for 40 CFR 63.113(j)
and 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5). We also disagree with other commenters'
assertions that the EPA must prohibit the use of flares to control EtO
from process vents and storage vessels. In the proposed rule, we
recognized flares cannot achieve 99.9 percent EtO reduction and
proposed an EtO flare load limit. We also noted that as part of the CAA
section 114 request, six facilities measured EtO emissions from their
EtO emission points and none of these six facilities currently use a
flare to control EtO emissions from process vents or storage vessels.
Even so, our modeling file does include several other HON facilities
that do use flares to control process vents and storage vessels that
emit EtO. Therefore, we accounted for these flares operating at 98
percent EtO reduction in our risk assessment, proposed an EtO flare
load limit, and determined that it is not necessary for flares to
achieve 99.9 percent EtO reduction in order to reduce risk to an
acceptable level and provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health (provided that owners and operators still comply with the
entire suite of EtO control requirements that we are finalizing in the
rule). However, in response to a comment addressed in section
IV.A.3.d.v of this preamble we are not including an EtO flare load
limit in the final rule; and we determined that risks are acceptable
for flares operating at 98 percent EtO reduction and flares operating
at 98 percent EtO reduction provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, without the need for an EtO flare load limit.
Also, to the commenter's assertion that the EPA is giving differing
treatment between HON process vents and storage vessels and P&R I
process vents and storage vessels, we note that in the final rule, we
require use of non-flare controls to reduce chloroprene by 98 percent
\41\ (i.e., we prohibit the use of flares to control chloroprene in the
Neoprene Production source category) because dioxins and furans can be
formed when chlorinated compounds (i.e., chloroprene) are present and
combusted, and the more consistent combustion of non-flare controls
such as thermal oxidizers is more appropriate than flares to reduce
dioxin and furan formation. Dioxin and furan formation is not a concern
when combusting EtO in a flare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In response to a comment in section IV.A.3.e.i of this
preamble, we are revising the performance standard for process vents
and storage vessels in chloroprene service (from a 99.9 percent by
weight reduction requirement as proposed to a 98 percent by weight
reduction requirement in the final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Equipment Leaks in EtO Service
Comment: A commenter said that they supported the EPA's proposed
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for equipment leaks and
the sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators to
demonstrate that process equipment does, or does not, meet the
definition. However, some commenters requested the EPA revise the 0.1
percent by weight threshold to 5.0 percent by weight.
A commenter argued that most of EtO emissions from equipment leaks
come from piping that has an EtO concentration of 5.0 percent by weight
or higher. The commenter contended that expanding the new regulatory
provisions to streams containing EtO between 0.1 and 5.0 percent by
weight will result in a much more stringent LDAR program for components
that are primarily in ethylene, methane, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide
(CO2) service, and will have a minimal to negligible impact
on reducing the fugitive emissions of EtO and the resulting residual
risk. The commenter also recommended that the EPA revise 40 CFR
63.109(c)(1) and (2) to reflect the 5.0 percent by weight threshold
instead of the 0.1 percent by weight threshold.
Other commenters asserted that the EPA does not explain why a 0.1
percent by weight threshold of EtO in equipment presents unacceptable
risk; the commenters said based on their revised risk modeling
assessment (including their recommended revisions to the HEM4 modeling
file inputs such as revised flare parameterization, updates provided by
companies, and removal of one time/infrequent release events),
equipment containing less than 5 percent EtO does not significantly
contribute to risk, nor is it cost-effective when considered in the
context of an ample margin of safety analysis.
[[Page 42975]]
A commenter added that the EPA should revise the definition to
refer to ``the procedures specified in Sec. 63.109'' instead of
``sampling and analysis'' to reduce confusion and eliminate the
potential safety risks/costs of unnecessary sampling; it is not until
proposed 40 CFR 63.109(c)(2) that the reader is informed that one is
allowed to use engineering judgment to determine the EtO concentration
of the process fluid, which does not necessitate sampling.
Response: The EPA acknowledges a commenter's support of the
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for equipment leaks and
the procedures for owners and operators to demonstrate that process
equipment does, or does not, meet the definition. However, we reject
other commenters' requests to revise the 0.1 percent by weight
threshold to 5.0 percent by weight. As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), results from our risk
assessment indicate that, for the source category MIR of 2,000-in-1
million, approximately 20 percent is from emissions of EtO related to
HON equipment leaks. We also note that the risk from EtO from HON
equipment leaks at seven facilities (including the facility driving the
MIR) is >=100-in-1 million. To help reduce the risk from the SOCMI
source category to an acceptable level, for EtO emissions from HON
equipment leaks, we performed a review of available measures for
reducing EtO emissions from components that are most likely to be in
EtO service, which include connectors (in gas and vapor service or
light liquid service), pumps (in light liquid service), and valves (in
gas or light liquid service). Almost all EtO emissions related to
equipment leaks come from these three pieces of equipment.
We considered the proposed 0.1 percent by weight threshold
reasonable in terms of being measurable and quantifiable, and also
appropriate for the vent stream characteristics we intended to regulate
that resulted in risk reductions. We acknowledge every facility is
different. Some facilities may pose less risks than others, but in a
densely populated area with a nearby receptor and under specific
conditions, the risks could none-the-less be unacceptable. In order to
be protective of public health, we took a conservative approach.
Regarding comments that there is no justification for adding additional
controls for low risk sources given the cost, in codifying the Benzene
NESHAP approach CAA section 112(f)(2) does not allow us to consider
cost at the first step of the residual risk analysis in identifying
what standards are needed to reduce unacceptable risk to an acceptable
level, and at proposal, and in the final rule, we determined that prior
to application of the control requirements being finalized, the risk
was unacceptable. It is only if the EPA adopts more stringent standards
to further reduce emissions and reduce risks below acceptable levels if
needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
at the second step of the residual risk analysis, that costs may be
considered among other relevant factors.
With regard to a commenter's request to change the phrasing of
``sampling and analysis is performed as specified in Sec. 63.109'' to
``the procedures specified in Sec. 63.109 are performed'' within the
definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' for equipment leaks, we
agree this suggested language is more clear and have revised it in the
final rule.
Comment: Several commenters objected to the EPA's proposal at 40
CFR 63.171(f) that does not allow delay of repair for equipment in EtO
service.
Commenters contended that the EPA did not consider the cost
associated with more frequent and/or longer outage times due to removal
of the delay of repair option. Commenters stated that most valves and
connectors are not configured with in-line spares; and if a repair
requires replacement of a leaking component, the equipment must be
isolated, and in certain instances the entire process unit must be
shutdown. Commenters contended that additional shutdowns directly
increase the likelihood of future leaks given that each shutdown and
startup cycle subjects equipment to pressure and temperature changes
that could negatively impact equipment reliability.
Commenters added that, often, valves or other connectors may not be
``off the shelf'' so that a facility would be required to special order
and wait on the equipment to arrive while shutdown. A commenter stated
that lead up times to shutdowns typically provide adequate time for
facilities to order and test components; however, if the delay of
repair provisions are eliminated, required lead times for these
activities will result in extended shutdowns. The commenter also said
that facilities must often carefully evaluate the safety considerations
of ``boxing in'' leaking EtO equipment due to the tendency of stagnant
EtO to polymerize which can render equipment such as control valves
inoperable. The commenter continued that it is often necessary to
evaluate and engineer a clamp style solution, a process that can take
more than the allotted 15-day repair time.
Commenters also noted additional consequences of more frequent
shutdowns including additional wear on rotating equipment, and reduced
catalyst life which could result in emission increases and waste
generation.
A commenter argued that eliminating delay of repair would generally
require a first repair attempt within 5 days of detection, which is an
infeasibly short amount of time to safely shutdown one process unit,
much less multiple integrated units. The commenter stated that delay of
repair provides facilities with time needed to plan and prepare for a
shutdown, which minimizes the safety risks that inevitably accompany
shutdowns and startups. The commenter added that being required to
shutdown abruptly and more frequently will unnecessarily increase
safety risks to employees with minimal environmental benefit. The
commenter said that they follow standard industry procedures in
preparing for a scheduled shutdown, which involves adequate preparation
time and personnel to completely purge of all lines containing EtO,
using appropriate controls, before shutdown. The commenter said that
stagnant EtO polymerizes, creating heat that can cause explosions.
Commenters argued that an increase in number of shutdowns due to
the EPA eliminating delay of repair for equipment in EtO service could
also result in impact to supply chain. A commenter said that supply
chain disruptions pose significant economic, security and health risks.
Another commenter added that impacts on supply could well impact
broader EPA and Administration priorities such as the EPA's recent
proposal to electrify motor vehicles which is dependent upon EV battery
production (and such battery production is currently generally
dependent upon ethylene carbonate, which is produced by reacting EtO
with CO2).
Commenters contended that the EPA failed to explain how eliminating
delay of repair for equipment in EtO service would reduce EtO emissions
or risks. Commenters argued that eliminating the delay of repair
provisions results in an increase in emissions due to more frequent
shutdowns. Commenters contended that without the ability to delay
repair, it will result in unplanned shutdowns which will result in
greater emissions as emissions are expected to be higher during
shutdown than emissions from components on delay of repair. A commenter
said EtO emissions can range from approximately 5 to 340 lbs per
shutdown event and provided calculations showing that a repair of a
[[Page 42976]]
leaking valve would have to be delayed for over 10 years before the
emissions exceeded those generated by a CMPU shutdown that resulted in
85 lbs of EtO emissions. Some commenters pointed out that delay of
repair provisions allow facilities to assess whether allowing a small
leak to continue poses less risk and concern than the emissions
necessarily associated with a shutdown.
A commenter argued that they would expect only a small number of
component(s) in EtO service to use the delay of repair provisions at 40
CFR 63.171 given that HON CMPUs that produce and use EtO as a raw
material will typically have a planned process shutdown every 2 to 3
years depending on the specific process.
Another commenter suggested that the EPA adopt the TCEQ delay of
repair program as described in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)
115.352(2): If the repair of a component within 15 days after the leak
is detected would require a process unit shutdown that would create
more emissions than the repair would eliminate, the repair may be
delayed until the next scheduled process unit shutdown. The commenter
argued that the TCEQ requirement is reasonable given that it allows
companies to choose the lowest-emitting option and attain the goal of
minimizing emissions.
Response: Regarding commenters' assertions about cost and timing of
repair, with one exception, we are finalizing the proposed requirements
for delay of repair for equipment in EtO service pursuant to CAA
section 112(f)(2), on the basis of risks being unacceptable. Where we
find risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The largest
contributor to risk from EtO facilities is due to emissions from
equipment leaks. Because emissions of EtO from the SOCMI source
category result in unacceptable risks, we proposed and are finalizing
requirements that would reduce risks to an acceptable level, including
provisions not allowing a delay of repair for equipment in EtO service.
Allowing delay of repair would allow increased emissions of EtO and
increased risk. The one exception is that we are revising 40 CFR
63.171(b) to allow a delay of repair for equipment if the equipment is
isolated from the process and does not remain in organic HAP service.
To the commenters' assertions that increased startup and shutdown
events will lead to additional EtO emissions, we disagree. First, we
have removed the exemptions for periods of SSM. As a result, facilities
must be in compliance with the rule requirements at all times and must
control EtO emissions at all times. Therefore, while there may be
additional EtO entering the control device as a result of SSM, the
finalized control provisions ensure risk remains acceptable. Second, we
are finalizing maintenance vent requirements which are intended to
address equipment openings that result from startup, shutdown,
maintenance, or inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied,
depressurized, degassed, or placed into service. We are finalizing that
owners and operators may not release more than 1.0 ton of EtO from all
maintenance vents combined per any consecutive 12-month period. An
owner or operator may designate any process vent as a maintenance vent
if the vent is only used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance,
or inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized,
degassed, or placed into service. Thus, shutdowns resulting from the
identification of leaks could be included under the 1.0 tpy EtO limit.
It is the responsibility of the owner or operator to plan accordingly
for equipment replacement and minimizing safety risks during shutdowns.
Third, using the commenters' estimates of EtO emissions ranging from 5
to 340 lbs per shutdown event, the number of shutdowns that could fall
under the 1 tpy limit could range from almost 6 to 400. Given the
typical leak rates seen by industry (as discussed in our responses to
comments in section 2.2 of the document titled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins
Industry, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking) and the
variety of process conditions, the EPA believes that it would be
unlikely for a facility to develop 5 leaks at the maximum estimated EtO
levels warranting shutdown events. We note that even if a facility were
to reach the 1.0 tpy maintenance vent limit, they may still shutdown to
repair leaking equipment so long as the emissions are controlled.
Comment: In response to the EPA soliciting comments on alternative
monitoring technologies, a commenter supported optical gas imaging
(OGI) be used as an option to find larger equipment leak air emissions
and to repair leaks, and that perhaps it could be used in conjunction
with an annual connector monitoring program for connectors in EtO
service. Another commenter contended that the EPA failed to include
LDAR alternatives for use of OGI despite the agency's recognition of
its efficacy in the recent NSPS subpart OOOOb and EG subpart OOOOc
proposed rules and development of Appendix K, which specifically states
it is the methodology that the EPA plans to incorporate by reference in
the different NSPS/NESHAP subparts to enable implementation of this
technology. The commenter contended that the EPA should correct this
inconsistency. A commenter recommended that if the EPA determines OGI
is an appropriate option to include in the final rule, the EPA model
the specific OGI requirements after those contained in NSPS subpart
OOOOa at 40 CFR 60.5397a(c)(7) and (d)(1) that address fugitive
emissions monitoring plans where OGI is used and the requirements in 40
CFR 60.5397a(h)(4)(iv) that address resurveying equipment to verify
repair. The commenter noted that some of the requirements in NSPS
subpart OOOOa relative to OGI monitoring will need to be adjusted to
account for application of OGI to a CMPU and not an oil and gas
production site, as there are more potential interferences in a CMPU.
Another commenter contended that the EPA has not clearly addressed
the use of any alternative work practices for fugitive monitoring such
as OGI but is soliciting technical justification to include or exclude
OGI as an option for the proposed low (100 ppmv) detection levels using
EPA Method 21. The commenter added that this low concentration has not
been evaluated as a level which can be observed reliably and
consistently with an OGI camera. The commenter requested that any
technical evaluation and proposed outcome be re-published as a proposal
to ensure comprehensive evaluation by all potentially affected parties
and authorities. The commenter concluded that the EPA should not
collect comments, complete a review, and make a final rule change
without further opportunity for comment.
A commenter stated that based on publicized research, including the
EPA's Optical Gas Imaging Appendix K Technical Support Document, there
is a known variability of response factors within chemical plant gas
streams and the detection/sensitivity ranges of OGI technology versus
legacy technologies. The commenter noted that case-by-case permits have
been issued with an OGI alternative; however, each of these
[[Page 42977]]
permits has incorporated an annual EPA Method 21 survey to ensure that
all components have been properly evaluated for leaks, and the
commenter recommended adding this requirement for any OGI alternative
for these sites.
A commenter noted that the results obtained using OGI for leak
detection can be heavily influenced by instrument performance,
environmental conditions, and human factors. The commenter explained
that weather conditions such as ambient temperature, wind speed, or
wind direction relative to the observer may affect the apparent
concentration of any leak when viewed with OGI. The commenter stated
that a study of OGI for detection of natural gas leaks found that only
51 percent of leaks were detected at wind speeds above 21 miles per
hour. The commenter opined that higher concentrations of gas streams
may be needed for detection to occur with OGI technology, especially as
it applies to OGI surveys within the chemical sector, whereas the
annual EPA Method 21 survey ensures a quantitative measurement and more
appropriately demonstrates compliance. The commenter requested the EPA
clarify if it plans to include the proposed Appendix K or another
monitoring protocol for OGI to be followed so that there are clear and
consistent expectations of field experience for camera operators
including operator training, component dwell time, required operator
breaks, and other criteria which are not addressed in 40 CFR 63.11.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that stated the rules
should have required the use of OGI. The SOCMI has been complying with
equipment leak regulations since the early 1980s, and leaks are much
smaller than those found in the oil and gas industry. As a result, the
leak definitions that SOCMI facilities are complying with are in the
area of 500 to 1000 ppm for most equipment, and the proposed and final
rule lowers leak definitions to 100 ppm for valves and connectors in
EtO service. We acknowledge that OGI is effective at finding large
leaks quickly for many compounds. OGI is less effective at finding low-
level leaks, especially in the environmental conditions that generally
exist during a field survey. As a commenter indicated, the low leak
concentrations that were proposed and which we are finalizing (100 ppm)
have not been evaluated at a level which can be observed reliably and
consistently with an OGI camera. In feasibility studies conducted as
part of the development of 40 CFR part 60 appendix K,\42\ which are the
procedures for using OGI in leak detection, leaks below 500 ppm (or
even higher in some circumstances) could not be reliably detected even
in a laboratory setting except under the most ideal conditions. We also
agree with the commenter who noted that leak detection with an OGI
camera is heavily influenced by environmental conditions and human
factors. Additionally, as explained more fully in response to a comment
in section IV.B.3.b.ii of this preamble, OGI cameras, especially in the
most common filter bandwidths, are not sensitive to some of the
chemicals found at SOCMI facilities, which can make leaks difficult or
even impossible to see, even for large leaks. In promulgating NSPS
subpart OOOOb and EG subpart OOOOc, the EPA considered the level of
control required for fugitive emissions in the oil and natural gas
sector, as well as the chemical make-up of the expected fugitive
emissions. Based on those considerations, we determined that OGI was a
viable option for facilities subject to regulation under those subparts
through our BSER analysis. However, for the reasons outlined in this
response, while the use of OGI is appropriate for the oil and natural
gas sector, it would not be appropriate to rely exclusively upon OGI
for the SOCMI source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 89 FR 16820 (March 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Heat Exchange Systems in EtO Service
Comment: A commenter said that they supported the EPA's proposed
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for heat exchange systems
and the sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators to
demonstrate that each heat exchange system does, or does not, meet the
definition. However, commenters requested the following clarifications
or revisions to the proposed text:
the EPA should add into the definition an exclusion for
EtO present as an impurity consistent with the Agency's memorandum
which states: ``This definition excludes ethylene oxide that is present
as an impurity.'' (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0074).
the EPA should revise 40 CFR 63.109(e) to allow the
ability to use good engineering judgment to determine the percent of
EtO in the process fluid as they have for equipment leaks in 40 CFR
63.109(c)(2). The commenters said that process fluids serviced by heat
exchange systems are the same process fluids contained in equipment
that must be evaluated for ``in ethylene oxide service,'' and this
prohibition negates the cost savings and flexibility allowed by the use
of good engineering judgment for equipment leaks because facilities
will be required to conduct sampling and analysis on the same process
streams regardless under the heat exchange system provisions. The
commenters added that sampling and analyzing process fluids subject to
the monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems presents the same
issues and difficulties that the EPA identified as the basis for
allowing engineering judgment under the MON RTR.
the EPA should consider allowing facilities to account for
site-specific conversion of EtO to ethylene glycol in water in heat
exchange systems based on the characteristics (e.g., temperature and
pH) of the heat exchange system in determining the threshold
definition.
Some commenters requested the revise the 0.1 percent by weight
threshold to at least 0.5 percent by weight. These commenters argued
that a heat exchanger with an industry-average flow rate with a leak
rate of 3.6 ppmw and a process fluid concentration of 0.5 percent EtO
would not pose unacceptable risk if the leak were to occur for 135 days
as allowed by the existing heat exchange system monitoring provisions
(i.e., quarterly sampling plus a 45-day repair period). A commenter
asserted that the EPA does not explain why a 0.1 percent by weight
threshold of EtO in process fluid presents unacceptable risk.
Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support of the definition
for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for heat exchange systems and the
procedures for owners and operators to demonstrate that each heat
exchange system does, or does not, meet the definition. However, we
disagree with other commenters' requests to revise the 0.1 percent by
weight threshold to at least 0.5 percent by weight. We consider the 0.1
percent by weight threshold reasonable in terms of being measurable and
quantifiable, and also appropriate for heat exchange system leak
characteristics we intended to regulate that resulted in risk
reductions. We acknowledge every facility is different. Some facilities
may pose less risks than others, but in a densely populated area with a
nearby receptor and under specific conditions, the risks could none-
the-less be unacceptable. In order to be protective of public health,
we took a conservative approach.
We agree to the commenter's request to allow the ability to use
good engineering judgment at 40 CFR 63.109(e) to determine the percent
of
[[Page 42978]]
EtO of the process fluid cooled by the heat exchange system similar to
what we have allowed for equipment leaks in 40 CFR 63.109(c)(2). We are
making this change in the final rule due to the difficulty and issues
with sampling and testing fluid in process lines, particularly if the
fluid contains EtO. Also, we believe the use of site-specific
conversion calculations of EtO to ethylene glycol in heat exchange
systems already qualifies as good engineering judgment using
calculations based on process stoichiometry; however, due to its
relation to risk as previously discussed, the threshold for determining
if equipment is ``in ethylene oxide service'' is not being revised per
the commenter's request.
Regarding the language used in docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0074 versus it not being included in the red-line strike-out version of
the proposed rule text, we have determined that the language used in
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0074 is an error. In other words, we
are finalizing the red-line strike-out version of the proposed rule
text and are not including an exclusion for EtO present as an impurity.
The 0.1 percent by weight threshold already accounts for impurities.
Comment: A commenter said they support the EPA's proposed rule text
at 40 CFR 63.104(g)(6) and (h)(6) that requires owners and operators to
conduct more frequent leak monitoring (weekly instead of quarterly) for
heat exchange systems in EtO service and repair leaks within 15 days
from the sampling date (in lieu of the current 45-day repair
requirement after receiving results of monitoring indicating a leak in
the HON), and delay of repair would not be allowed.
However, other commenters raised the following concerns with regard
to sampling frequency and delay of repair. Commenters recommended that
the EPA modify the proposed 40 CFR 63.104(g)(6) to require monthly (in
lieu of weekly) sampling via the Modified El Paso Method. A commenter
contended that weekly monitoring of each heat exchange system will
require either multiple sampling apparatuses or frequent movement of
the sampling apparatus from one system to another. Similarly, another
commenter argued that weekly sampling presents some logistical problems
as typically a contractor brings in the monitoring device, which is a
skid mounted unit; the contractor will then move the device from one
sampling location to additional sampling locations at the site. In some
cases, the commenter said that the monitoring skid must be moved to
other process areas that are subject to the other rules such as the
Ethylene MACT and the MON rule; therefore, a requirement to conduct
this type of monitoring on a weekly basis will limit the flexibility to
move the monitoring skid at the site.
The commenters suggested that the monthly Modified El Paso Method
monitoring could be combined with weekly analysis of a surrogate
parameter as an alternative to conducting weekly sampling using the
Modified El Paso Method. The commenters said that the surrogate
parameter could be something like monitoring weekly using a water
analytical method to indicate the presence of a leak or monitoring
other parameters that would indicate the presence of a leak; and if a
surrogate measurement indicates a leak, the facility would be required
to confirm the presence of the leak using the Modified El Paso Method
and repair as required by the proposed provisions.
A commenter requested that the EPA not eliminate the option that
allows facilities to delay the repair provided emissions from the
process shutdown needed to repair the leak are greater than the
potential emissions of delaying. The commenter said that this option
essentially allows facilities to repair the leak with as little
emissions and environmental impact as possible by requiring the
facility to evaluate the emissions of a continued leak against the
emissions from an entire process shutdown. The commenter claimed that
allowing a repair to be delayed until the next process unit shutdown,
if emissions from the delay would be less than those from the unplanned
shutdown itself, has been a longstanding concept in several chemical
sector rules (see for example 40 CFR 60.482-9(c), 63.104(e)(2)(i),
63.171(c), 63.1024(d)(3), and 63.105(d)(3)). The commenter contended
that by forcing facilities to repair leaks solely based on a
concentration-based threshold, facilities with a smaller recirculation
rate will likely emit greater amounts of HAP than if they were allowed
to assess the overall mass emissions from the leak versus shutdown and
choose the option that minimizes emissions.
The commenter also said that it is unclear why the EPA is proposing
to not allow facilities to delay a repair by isolating the equipment
such that it is no longer in EtO service. The commenter said that in
certain instances, a facility may be able to isolate a leaking heat
exchanger but cannot open the equipment until a process unit shutdown.
Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support of the rule text
at 40 CFR 63.104(g)(6) and (h)(6) that requires owners and operators to
conduct more frequent leak monitoring (weekly instead of quarterly) for
heat exchange systems in EtO service and repair leaks within 15 days
from the sampling date (in lieu of the current 45-day repair
requirement after receiving results of monitoring indicating a leak in
the HON), and delay of repair would not be allowed.
However, we disagree with other commenters' request to require
monthly (in lieu of weekly) sampling via the Modified El Paso Method.
As we stated in the document titled Analysis of Control Options for
Heat Exchange Systems to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the
SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to HON (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0071), we determined baseline EtO emissions and
emissions reductions using information the EPA received from Union
Carbide Corporation-Seadrift, TX about an EtO emissions event (Incident
293911) that was reported to the TCEQ on October 21, 2018. Using
information provided, we calculated different sampling and repair
periods required to reduce risks to an acceptable level. Because at
least a 90+ percent reduction in EtO emissions is needed to get to this
level (as the risk posed by this large leak is at least 400-in-1-
million based on current the HON standards and Union Carbide's best
case emissions estimates and because other emission sources also
contribute to risks), we determined that if the facility identifies and
repairs an EtO leak (from a heat exchange system) within 15 days from a
weekly sampling event, the facility would achieve a 6.06 tpy EtO
emission reduction (i.e., 93 percent reduction in EtO emissions). Less
frequent sampling (e.g., monthly) and more time to repair the leak from
the sampling period does not get to the level of reduction needed to
bring facility risk to below 100-in-1 million. We also noted that the
facility indicated they are currently conducting weekly sampling for
leaks of EtO already and have implemented this type of sampling across
all their facilities that have heat exchange systems cooling process
streams with EtO.
In addition, we also reject the commenters' request to use a weekly
analysis of a surrogate parameter as an alternative to conducting
weekly sampling using the Modified El Paso Method. Surrogate methods
via water analysis are less sensitive than the Modified El Paso Method.
Therefore, though weekly monitoring via a
[[Page 42979]]
surrogate would catch the largest of leaks, there would still be the
potential for leaks to go uncaptured until the next monthly check via
the Modified El Paso Method. As a result, to keep risk at an acceptable
level, we maintain that weekly monitoring via the Modified El Paso
Method is appropriate.
Similarly, we reject a commenter's request to allow delay of repair
at 40 CFR 63.104(h)(6) for heat exchange systems in EtO service. As
previously discussed, our leak analysis is based on reducing the delay
of repair to achieve a cancer risk incidence at or below 100-in-1
million. Given that EtO is a major cancer driver, leaks need to be
addressed quickly to keep risk at an acceptable level. Having said
this, we agree with the commenter that owners and operators should be
allowed to delay a repair by isolating the equipment (e.g., a heat
exchanger) such that it is no longer in EtO service. It was our intent
to allow this type of delay of repair which has always been allowed in
the HON at 63.104(e). In this scenario, the owner and operator may
delay repair indefinitely as there is no longer an active EtO leak once
the equipment is isolated and not in EtO service. For this reason, we
are revising 40 CFR 63.104(h)(6) in the final rule to include the
following allowance: ``Delay of repair of heat exchange systems in
ethylene oxide service for which leaks have been detected is allowed if
the equipment is isolated from the process such that it is no longer in
ethylene oxide service.''
iv. Wastewater in EtO Service
Comment: A commenter said that they supported the EPA's proposed
definition for ``in ethylene oxide service'' for wastewater and the
sampling and analysis procedures for owners and operators to
demonstrate that each wastewater stream does, or does not, meet the
definition. However, other commenters requested the EPA reevaluate the
1 ppmw EtO concentration threshold for wastewater control. These
commenters contended that the EPA should make the EtO concentration
threshold less stringent (i.e., a value >1ppmw EtO) primarily on the
basis that wastewater should not be regulated more strictly than
process vents, there is negligible additional benefit for excessive
complexity controlling down to 1 ppmw, and the majority of wastewater
collection and treatment emissions will be captured even with a less
stringent EtO concentration threshold for wastewater control. The
commenters said the EPA does not state why a 1 ppmw threshold is
necessary to reduce risks or provide an ample margin of safety, or why
Group 1 streams should be classified based solely on this concentration
threshold. The commenters recommended the EtO concentration threshold
for wastewater control should be changed to an annual average
concentration of either 25 or 27 ppmw EtO with an annual average flow
rate of 10 liters per minute or higher (in lieu of proposing a no flow
rate threshold).
Additionally, commenters requested the EPA establish a mass
threshold for wastewater as a ``de minimis'' value to prevent having to
control very small or low flow intermittent wastewater streams that
provide little risk reduction, and to raise the concentration
commensurate with other rules. A commenter recommended the cutoff for
each wastewater stream be a total annual average mass flow rate of EtO
to the sewer of at least 0.01 lb/min (0.6 lb/hr). Other commenters
requested the EPA add a cutoff such that none of a facility's process
wastewater streams should be considered in EtO service if the entire
collection of EtO-containing process wastewater streams from HON CMPUs
contain no more than 0.24 tpy of EtO. Commenters pointed out that when
reviewing the responses to the EPA's CAA section 114 request, typically
only one existing Group 2 wastewater stream contributes the majority of
the EtO baseload flow to the sewer system; and there are other process
wastewater streams in which the EtO concentration is between 1 and 15
ppmw, and the flowrate of the stream is very low or very intermittent,
resulting in flows to the sewer systems that are in some cases less
than 0.1 lb/hr or even much lower. The commenters argued that it does
not make sense to require Group 1 controls for these low volume streams
as one is essentially treating almost pure water at this point.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' support and opposition
to revise the Group 1 wastewater stream threshold to include wastewater
streams in EtO service (i.e. wastewater streams with total annual
average concentration of EtO greater than or equal to 1 ppmw at any
flowrate). We are finalizing the definition of ``in ethylene oxide
service'' definition for wastewater as proposed. With regard to the
commenters' assertion that the 1 ppmw threshold was not explained, the
document titled Analysis of Control Options for Wastewater Streams to
Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for
Processes Subject to HON (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0087) states that a 1 ppmw threshold is necessary to reduce risk of EtO
emissions from wastewater, as the risk due to wastewater is as high as
200-in-1-million, which contributes to unacceptable risk. Additionally,
the data from our CAA section 114 request shows that introducing a
flowrate threshold, as one commenter suggested, would leave wastewater
streams with large amounts of EtO uncontrolled, and could contribute to
increased risk at some facilities over 100-in-1-million.
Similarly, we disagree with the commenters' suggestion to include a
mass threshold. We calculated the maximum amount of EtO emissions from
wastewater streams that would push a facility over the 100-in-1-million
mark, and found the lowest amount of excess EtO emissions to be 0.06
tpy. This is well under the commenters' suggestions for a mass
threshold.
Comment: A commenter said that they support the proposed provisions
at 40 CFR 63.132(c)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(ii) to revise the Group 1
wastewater stream threshold to include wastewater streams in EtO
service (i.e., wastewater streams with total annual average
concentration of EtO greater than or equal to 1 ppmw at any flow rate).
However, at least one commenter claimed that there is no need for the
proposed provisions at 40 CFR 63.132(c)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(ii) because
the current treatment options for process wastewater streams in EtO
service are already adequate to meet the ample margin of safety
provided the EPA made one edit to 40 CFR 63.138(e)(1) and (2) when
controlling streams with lower concentrations of EtO than previously
regulated by the EPA. The commenter recommended that the EPA add an
option to both 40 CFR 63.138(e)(1) and (2) that allows the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard for
EtO if the outlet concentration of EtO is less than 1 ppmw on an annual
average basis. The commenter argued that based on the EPA's proposed
definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' for wastewater streams it
may be difficult to demonstrate a 98- or 99-percent mass removal
efficiency for EtO especially if the concentration flowing into the
treatment device is a very low concentration; for example, if the inlet
flow is 0.1 lb/hr then it may be difficult to demonstrate that the
outlet flow is 0.002 lb/hr (98 percent efficiency) or 0.001 lb/hr (99
percent efficiency).
The commenter argued that EtO should only be included on Table 9 to
NESHAP subpart G and removed from Table 8 to NESHAP subpart G for the
following reasons:
The EPA provides no basis for adding EtO to Table 8 in the
document titled Analysis of Control Options for
[[Page 42980]]
Wastewater Streams to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the
SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to HON (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0087).
The original basis for the compounds listed on Table 8 was
that this subset of compounds are very volatile compounds. All the
compounds listed on Table 8 have a fraction removed (Fr) value \43\
equal to 0.99 as stated in 40 CFR 63.138(e)(2); and the Fr value for
EtO as stated in Table 9 is equal to 0.98. Pages 4-9 to 4-10 of the HON
Background Information Document (see EPA-453/R-94-003b) provides the
original basis for which compounds are included on Table 8 versus Table
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Fr is the fraction of a HAP that is stripped from
wastewater and is an indicator of the extent to which a HAP is
effectively removed during the stream-stripping process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fraction emitted (Fe) value \44\ for the compounds
listed on Table 8 range from 0.79 to 1. A value of 1 represents 100
percent of the compound in the wastewater is volatized to the
atmosphere; and EtO has a Fe value of 0.5 or only 50 percent is
volatilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The Fe is the mass fraction of a HAP that is emitted from
the wastewater collection and downstream biological treatment system
and is an indicator of the fraction of a compound expected to be an
air emission out of wastewater in typical chemical sector collection
and treatment systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new sources, 40 CFR 63.132(b)(2) already requires a
determination as to whether each wastewater stream requires control for
Table 9 compounds by complying with 40 CFR 63.132(c). 40 CFR
63.132(c)(1)(iii) (as proposed) specifies that a wastewater stream is a
Group 1 wastewater stream for Table 9 compounds if the wastewater
stream contains EtO such that it is considered to be in EtO service.
The commenter argued that the way the group determination
procedures are structured, adding EtO to Table 8 (when it is already
included as a Table 9 compound) is not going to change the fact that a
stream containing more than 1 ppmw EtO is considered to be in EtO
service and subject to further treatment and control regardless of
whether the source is existing or new.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for and
opposition of the proposed wastewater provisions at 40 CFR
63.132(c)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(ii). We are finalizing these provisions as
proposed. We believe the rule is clear with regard to demonstrating
compliance with these provisions. A wastewater stream that is less than
1 ppmw EtO is not considered a Group 1 wastewater stream, since it
would not meet the Group 1 criteria at 40 CFR 63.132(c)(1)(iii) and
(d)(1)(ii), provided it does not meet the criteria at 40 CFR
63.132(c)(1)(i) and (ii), and (d)(1)(i) either.
The EPA does not agree with the commenter that EtO should be
removed from Table 8 to NESHAP subpart G. Simply put, the compounds in
Table 8 do not biodegrade well and will need to be stripped, while the
compounds in Table 9 to NESHAP subpart G can be treated using a
biological treatment process. While we acknowledge EtO can be
biodegraded (and is included in Table 9), its low Fe value (0.5)
suggests that it can only be reduced by half when using a standard
biological treatment method, and the remainder would need to be
stripped out of the wastewater in order to meet the 1 ppmw threshold.
Since we are building on the existing HON standards, we believe it is
appropriate to restrict the treatment options given the risk associated
with EtO, and have determined facilities will have to use steam
stripping to comply with the proposed standards. For these reasons, it
is not appropriate to add an option, as requested by the commenter, to
both 40 CFR 63.138(e)(1) and (e)(2) that allows the owner or operator
to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard for EtO if the
outlet concentration of EtO is less than 1 ppmw on an annual average
basis regardless of the control method.
However, we agree with the commenter that verifying mass reductions
of 99 percent for wastewater streams containing small amounts of EtO
may be difficult. As a result, we are providing language in the final
rule at 40 CFR 63.138(b)(3) and (c)(3) that allows owners or operators
to reduce, by removal or destruction, the concentration of EtO to less
than 1 ppmw as determined by the procedures specified at 40 CFR
63.145(b). We believe these revisions add clarity that streams less
than 1 ppmw EtO are no longer considered to be ``in ethylene oxide
service'' per the definition and provides unity with the finalized
addition of EtO to Table 8 to NESHAP subpart G.
Comment: A commenter recommended that the EPA incorporate the test
methods specified in 40 CFR 63.109(d) for analysis of EtO in wastewater
directly into 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i) to provide consistency and clarity
with the regulation and to avoid the need to prepare additional
sampling plans and method validation under 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(ii) and
(iii). The commenter argued that in order to use the test methods
specified in 40 CFR 63.109(d) for determining the annual average
concentration of EtO in the wastewater streams (i.e., EPA Method 624.1
of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A, or preparation by either EPA Method
5031 or EPA Method 5030B and analysis by EPA Method 8260D in the SW-846
Compendium), without the additional cost and effort required to prepare
sampling plans and validate the test methods per 40 CFR
63.144(b)(5)(ii) and (iii), these methods listed in 40 CFR 63.109(d)
for EtO need to either be added to the list of acceptable methods under
40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i) or a cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.109(d) needs
to be added to 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i).
In addition, the commenter claimed that depending upon what
treatment option is selected in 40 CFR 63.138 to meet the requirements
for wastewater streams in EtO service, the test methods and procedures
in 40 CFR 63.145(b) for determining compliance with concentration limit
standards for non-combustion treatment processes in 40 CFR 63.138(b)(1)
and (c)(1) cross-reference the methods specified in 40 CFR
63.144(b)(5)(i). The commenter asserted that by adding the methods
specified in 40 CFR 63.109(d) for determining the EtO concentration to
the list of acceptable test methods in 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i), the EPA
would be also fixing other cross-referencing issues in 40 CFR 63.145 at
the same time.
Response: We are revising the final rule in response to the
commenter's request to add the test methods specified in 40 CFR
63.109(d) for analysis of EtO in wastewater to 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i).
We agree that these test methods are relevant to calculate the annual
average concentration of EtO needed to determine Group status, and, by
including them, we should create consistency between 40 CFR 63.109(d),
40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i), and 40 CFR 63.145.
Comment: A commenter said that they support the proposed provisions
at 40 CFR 63.104(k) to prohibit owners and operators from injecting
wastewater into or disposing of water through any heat exchange system
in a CMPU meeting the conditions of 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1) through (3) if
the water contains any amount of EtO, has been in contact with any
process stream containing EtO, or the water is considered wastewater as
defined in 40 CFR 63.101. On the contrary, other commenters provided
suggestions for this prohibition. At least one of these commenters
contended that the EPA has not identified any risk associated with EtO-
free wastewaters, nor has the EPA otherwise justified why EtO-free
wastewaters are prohibited from injection. This commenter said they
generally support not allowing
[[Page 42981]]
waters containing EtO or chloroprene to be added to the cooling loop of
a heat exchange system. However, the commenter noted that in the case
of the HON and P&R I rules, a wastewater is ``water that is discarded''
from a CMPU or an EPPU, respectively; therefore, wastewater that is
injected into a cooling loop is not discarded water.
Commenters argued the proposed language prohibiting the use of
``wastewater'' in heat exchange systems is a significant barrier to, if
not total prohibition on, water reuse projects that are under
consideration at various member facilities. The commenter requested
that the EPA modify the prohibition on using ``wastewater'' in heat
exchange systems to make clear that stormwater collected in process
areas and treated wastewater from process areas that may include EtO
but still qualify for discharge in accordance with a national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit may be used in heat
exchange systems.
A commenter said that the EPA should add the requirements into the
process wastewater prohibition language that already exists in 40 CFR
63.132(f) (rather than include new provisions at 40 CFR 63.104(k)). The
commenter claimed that the intent of the prohibition language in 40 CFR
63.132(f) is to prevent discarding a liquid or solid material
containing greater than 10,000 ppmw of a Table 9 (to NESHAP subpart G)
HAP to water or wastewater unless it is controlled as a Group 1
wastewater; and as currently proposed, a liquid or solid material that
is in EtO service, could be discarded to a wastewater stream without
control. The commenter urged the EPA to add the following sentence to
the beginning of 40 CFR 63.132(f): ``Owners or operators of each source
as defined in Sec. 63.101, beginning no later than the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.100(k)(11), shall not discard liquid or
solid stream containing EtO such that it is considered to be in EtO
service, as defined in Sec. 63.101 from a chemical manufacturing
process unit to water or wastewater, unless the receiving stream is
managed and treated as a Group 1 wastewater stream.'' Alternatively,
the commenter suggested the EPA could revise the proposed rule text in
40 CFR 63.104(k) in lieu of adding their request sentence to the
beginning of 40 CFR 63.132(f).
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for and
opposition to the proposed provisions that prohibit the injection or
disposal of wastewater containing or that has come in contact with EtO,
through heat exchange systems. We are finalizing these provisions at 40
CFR 63.104(k) as proposed. We disagree with commenters' requests to
allow stormwater or treated wastewater that may contain EtO but qualify
for discharge under the NPDES. We note that in a 1980 document titled
Water Quality Requirements of the Organic Chemicals Industry for
Recycle/Reuse Applications, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, the potential for increased recycle/reuse for process water
in the EtO industry was evaluated. It was found that significant
evaporation losses occur from process cooling towers. Any amount of EtO
in wastewater sent to cooling towers will inevitably be stripped out
and lead to a direct emission event. This is further expanded upon in
the preamble to the proposed rule (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023),
where we cite emissions events from two HON-subject facilities that
reported EtO emissions from heat exchange systems. This was due to
combining EtO entrained water with heat exchange water and not due to
any heat exchange system leaks, and resulted in ~3 tpy of EtO total
emitted. Given the current total risk associated with EtO, allowing any
EtO in cooling towers would be unacceptable.
v. EtO Flare Load Limit
Comment: A commenter said that they support the proposed
requirement at 40 CFR 63.108(p) that prohibits owners and operators
from sending more than 20 tons of EtO to all of their flares combined
in any consecutive 12-month period. Other commenters asserted that the
EPA must strengthen the monitoring needed to ensure compliance with the
EtO flare load limit proposed at 40 CFR 63.108(p). The commenters
stated that the requirement that ``the owner or operator must keep
monthly records of the quantity in tons of ethylene oxide sent to each
flare at the affected source and include a description of the method
used to estimate this quantity'' is left completely up to HON sources
to determine how to calculate the amount of EtO sent to their flares.
The commenters contended that this cannot ensure compliance with the
EtO flare load limit, and thus, cannot ensure that risk is reduced to
an acceptable level or that the standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. The commenters asserted that this
monitoring requirement is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to CAA
sections 112(f) and 114(a)(3). The commenters suggested that the EPA
require HON sources to calculate the amount of EtO sent to their flares
by: (i) Continuously measuring the flow rate of the waste gas to the
flare using a continuous emission monitoring system; (ii) continuously
measuring the EtO concentration in the waste gas, also by a continuous
emission monitoring system; and (iii) using the data from (i) and (ii)
to calculate the actual EtO mass that is sent to the flare over a given
time period. The commenters added that this calculation can be done
every minute if needed or on an hourly average basis, to provide an
accurate mass estimate of the flared EtO.
Numerous other commenters opposed the EtO flare load limit for at
least one or more of the following reasons:
it is unwarranted to impose expensive and stringent EtO
limitations on flaring on the entire SOCMI source category subject to
the HON when unacceptable risk from EtO flaring is driven by a single
facility.
the proposed cap would be problematic for more than just
the flares that the EPA identified given that many owners and operators
are currently applying a 99 percent EtO control efficiency to their
existing flare operations.\45\ TCEQ's control efficiency value for EtO
(99 percent) combined with the EPA's determination that EtO emissions
of 0.4 tpy would be acceptable (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0730-0070) would yield a 40 tpy (not 20 tpy) EtO flare load limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The commenters cited TCEQ's ``New Source Review (NSR)
Emission Calculation'' guidance (available at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/Guidance/NewSourceReview/emiss_calc_flares.pdf) and said that Texas allows
owners and operators to apply a 99 percent destruction efficiency
for flaring compounds containing no more than 3 carbons that contain
no elements other than carbon and hydrogen in additional to a select
number of compounds, including EtO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
when conducting its dispersion modeling for EtO emissions
from flares, the EPA did not use the modeling approach used by TCEQ
which takes into account the heat release associated with combustion in
a flare; TCEQ's modeling approach results in lower off-site impacts
from flares, which calls into question whether a cap of flaring is
necessary.
flares have been used to control emissions of HAP for
decades.
the combination of the proposed 20 tpy flare cap along
with the removal of the delay of repair provisions and the proposed PRD
provisions may have unintended consequences leaving owners and
operators with very few options for compliance if additional shutdowns
and start-ups are needed to address a leaking component and/or if a PRD
discharge to a flare occurs.
[[Page 42982]]
the EPA's proposed solution to replace flares with thermal
oxidizers is not practical from a timing or cost perspective.
thermal oxidizers are generally not suitable destruction
devices for PRD effluents; therefore, plants would need a new thermal
oxidizer along with a flare operating for unplanned discharges like PRD
vents, and the EPA's cost estimates are not reflective of the actual
costs that would incur in the 2023-2026 timeframe to install a new
thermal oxidizer system. It is common practice to size a thermal
oxidizer for a normal range of VOC concentrations and normal flow and
have an emergency flare to accommodate a higher concentration and flow
from an event. Using a thermal oxidizer in lieu of a flare to manage
EtO emissions would necessitate designing the oxidizer to accommodate
these larger intermittent flows and higher inlet concentrations of VOC;
however, such a design might not be feasible because normal operation
might represent too much of a ``turndown'' from emergency operation.
lead/delivery time for a new thermal oxidizer system could
exceed 52 weeks, but 12 months is a best estimate.
replacing flares with a thermal oxidizer essentially
maintains greenhouse gas emissions at the same level since EtO is
combusted in both applications.
there may be safety and reliability considerations not
addressed by the EPA with the use of a thermal oxidizer, which would
require design and process safety features due to the reactive and
flammable nature of EtO.
Commenters said that instead of replacing flares with thermal
oxidizers to meet the EPA's proposed EtO flare load limit, owners and
operators could potentially add a water scrubber between vent sources
like storage vessels and railcar loading/unloading operations and the
existing flares; however, this option would likely still need a larger
EtO flare load limit than the 20 tpy limit the EPA has proposed. The
commenters said that water from the scrubber could then be routed to
the EtO manufacturing processes at these sites where the EtO could be
recovered as a product stream. However, the commenters pointed out that
during times when the EtO manufacturing process unit is not in service,
the internal scrubber systems would need to be turned off as there is
no viable location to recover the EtO out of the scrubber water stream.
Thus, during times when storage vessels and railcar loading/unloading
operations would need to occur but the production plant is not in
service, the vent gas from the tank vents and loading/unloading
operations would need to be routed to the existing logistics flares. In
other words, the commenters contended that the amount of EtO that would
be routed to these flares in the future is a function of the operating
time of the production plant.
In summary, commenters said they are concerned that projects that
would be needed in order to meet the 20 tpy EtO flare load limit could
not be implemented within 2 years as proposed in 40 CFR 63.100(k)(11),
nor would the EPA's proposed control option achieve the intended
reductions and may actually result in an increase in secondary
emissions. Thus, these commenters requested that the EPA either refrain
from finalizing the proposed flare cap or increase the flare cap based
on a 99 percent control efficiency and provide 3 years for facilities
to comply with the revision.
Response: We are not finalizing the requirement at 40 CFR 63.108(p)
that prohibits owners and operators from sending more than 20 tons of
EtO to all of their flares combined in any consecutive 12-month period.
In other words, we are not including an EtO flare load limit in the
final rule. In response to a comment discussed in section 1.1 of the
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking, we have determined that it is appropriate to use a
different modeling approach for the final rule than the approach we
used for the proposed rule (i.e., we used the TCEQ modeling guidelines
to calculate effective flare stack parameters for the final rule in
lieu of modeling all flare releases as standard point sources with
temperatures less than 1,000 Kelvin and velocities less than one meter
per second for the proposed rule). As explained in that response,
modeling flare emissions using effective stack parameters accounts for
heat release of the flare and better characterizes plume rise. After
applying this approach for the final rule, we have determined the EtO
flare load limit is no longer necessary as flares controlling EtO are
no longer significant contributors to risk. Using the reported EtO
emissions of 2.87 tpy (post-control) from the highest-emitting
facility, we estimate that the facility's current combined total EtO
load to flares is about 143.5 tpy (pre-control). Based on the revised
modeling, a flare controlling 143.5 tpy (far higher than the proposed
20 tpy flare cap) is not a significant risk driver. Using the TCEQ
modeling guidelines for flares, we have determined that risk for the
SOCMI source category remains below 100-in-1 million without the need
of an EtO flare load limit, but only after implementation of the
standards we are finalizing for: (1) Process vents, (2) storage
vessels, (3) equipment leaks, (4) heat exchange systems, and (5)
wastewater ``in ethylene oxide service,'' as well as implementation of
the final requirements to reduce EtO emissions from maintenance vents
and PRDs. We note that by not finalizing an EtO flare load limit we
also obviate the inconsistency we unintentionally created in the
proposed rule by requiring owners and operators to comply with an EtO
flare load limit while also requiring owners and operators to minimize
emissions from PRDs by routing them to flares instead of venting to the
atmosphere.
vi. PRDs in EtO Service
Comment: Commenters argued that the requirement at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(3)(v)(D) that considers any atmospheric release from a PRD in
EtO service a violation will not reduce risk given that PRD releases
are non-routine events that take place to prevent catastrophic
equipment failure. The commenters contended that deeming atmospheric
PRD releases a violation will not reduce their occurrence. The
commenters stated that the proposed work practice standards at 40 CFR
63.165(e) (including the deviation determination criteria at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(3)(v)(A) through (C)) already provide an effective framework
for addressing PRD releases.
The commenters added it is not cost-effective to route all PRDs to
control devices; and the EPA wrongly assumes that all releases from
PRDs in EtO service can and will be controlled as process vents as a
result of the prohibition on such releases. The commenters provided
numerous examples of why certain PRDs cannot be safely routed to a
control device and/or would be technically infeasible in many process
designs such as hydraulic limitations of flare systems or other
controls, PRD backpressure, EtO incompatibility with other collected
compounds, and polymerization of ethylene in closed vent systems.
Commenters argued that because PRD releases are usually non-routine,
infrequent, and episodic, piping and the control device would have to
be sized
[[Page 42983]]
to accommodate significantly larger flow than normal process vents, and
the control device would be required to operate in an indefinite
``stand-by'' mode to accommodate unexpected and emergency releases. A
commenter said ``stand-by'' mode may also require significant amounts
of fuel and generate secondary combustion emissions on a continuous
basis for a release that may or may not occur.
Response: We are finalizing these requirements for PRDs in EtO
service pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), on the basis of risks being
unacceptable. Where we find risks are unacceptable, the EPA must
determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an
acceptable level. Because emissions of EtO from the SOCMI source
category result in unacceptable risks, we proposed and are finalizing
requirements that would reduce risks to an acceptable level, including
provisions that would make all PRD releases of EtO directly to the
atmosphere a violation of the standard. As explained in response to a
comment in section 1.1 of the document titled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins
Industry, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking, the EPA
modeled certain PRD releases of EtO during maintenance events which
resulted in very high risk from one facility (i.e., EtO risk from
process vent emission sources emitted through PRDs is approximately 75
percent of the Port Neches facility's total SOCMI source category risk
of 2000-in-1 million). There is no reason for not considering the
impact of these events in our risk modeling and rulemaking. In
response, we proposed and are finalizing a requirement that releases
from PRDs in EtO service are a violation of the emission standard.
vii. Other EtO Related Requirements
Comment: Commenters asserted that the EPA acted unreasonably in
imposing controls across the entire ``HON source category.'' The
commenters contended that the EPA may require those facilities that
pose unacceptable risk to implement targeted additional controls, but
it is arbitrary and capricious to attempt to impose those same
requirements everywhere despite the absence of risk. A commenter
provided an example where under the proposed rule, both Huntsman Conroe
and Huntsman Geismar facilities would be heavily burdened by the
proposed HON EtO control requirements even though the EPA found that
neither facility poses unacceptable risk.
These commenters said that the EPA's proposed response to 8
facilities with EtO risk above the presumptive limit is a one-size-
fits-all approach to addressing risk from the source category that
unreasonably imposes stringent control requirements across all
emissions sources at every facility, rather than addressing the
residual risks that were actually identified. The commenters said the
approach is inconsistent with CAA section 112(f) because half of the
facilities affected by the proposed EtO standards do not present
unacceptable risk to surrounding areas, yet the EPA proposes to impose
emissions standards on these facilities that were derived without
consideration of cost. A commenter pointed out that Congress explicitly
granted the EPA the authority to consider variations among sources in
promulgating emission standards under CAA section 112 through
subcategorization; yet, the EPA has failed to utilize this statutorily
available tool here. Commenters said that even if the Agency chooses
not to subcategorize, the EPA has recognized that it is unreasonable to
require controls on all facilities when a more targeted and less costly
option may achieve an acceptable level of risk. The commenters pointed
out that the EPA used a tailored approach in the RTR for sterilization
facilities (see 88 FR 22790, 22826-28) and the proposed MON rule (see
84 FR 69182) which applied different levels of stringency in accordance
with the different facilities' MIRs (in other words, the EPA tailored
its acceptability analysis to address risk from the highest risk
sources).
A commenter added that the EPA's approach is not sufficiently
targeted because the applicability of the new EtO emissions standards
would be governed by the definition of ``in ethylene oxide service''
that the EPA adopted in the MON, which was not derived with any
consideration of the emissions characteristics of the SOCMI source
category or the risk profile determined by the EPA's risk assessment of
the SOCMI source category. The commenter contended that adopting the
MON definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' results in new EtO
emissions standards that apply to approximately twice as many affected
facilities as needed to address the risk that the EPA determines to be
actionable.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that the EPA acted
unreasonably in imposing controls across the entire SOCMI source
category (note the commenter used the phrase ``HON source category;''
however, the source category covered by the HON is actually the SOCMI
source category). We also disagree with the commenters that our action
to impose the same EtO requirements on each owner and operator is
arbitrary and capricious.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 88 FR 25080,
April 25, 2023), we identified EtO as the cancer risk driver from HON
sources; and we are aware of 15 HON facilities reporting more than 0.1
tpy of EtO emissions in their emissions inventories from HON processes
and two other facilities that are new or under construction with HON
processes that we expect will exceed this threshold (but for which we
do not yet have emissions inventory information). Of these 17
facilities, 12 facilities produce and emit EtO, which is a process
subject to the HON MACT standards. In addition, all 17 of these
facilities have additional HON processes that use and emit EtO in the
production of glycols, glycol ethers, or ethanolamines. Therefore, we
are not imposing EtO controls across the entire SOCMI source category.
Rather, in order to reduce emissions of EtO from HON processes, the EPA
is finalizing more stringent control requirements for process vents,
storage vessels, equipment leaks, heat exchange systems, wastewater,
maintenance vents, and PRDs that emit or have the potential to emit
EtO. While it is true from our residual risk assessment that eight of
the 17 facilities with emissions of EtO from various HON processes have
cancer risks above 100-in-1 million, the standards are national
standards that apply to specific types of sources rather than specific
facilities, and the revisions ensure that risks from the source
category are acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. As such, we disagree with the
commenter that we should target additional controls on only facilities
that pose unacceptable risk.
For these same reasons, we also disagree with the commenter that
adopting the MON definition of ``in ethylene oxide service'' results in
new EtO emissions standards that apply to approximately twice as many
affected facilities as needed to address the risk that the EPA
determines to be actionable. Although, as noted in our proposal,
similar emission sources and standards exist between the HON and MON,
we disagree with the commenter that we did not give any consideration
[[Page 42984]]
of the emissions characteristics of the SOCMI source category or the
risk profile determined by the EPA's risk assessment of the SOCMI
source category. The scientific and technical bases for the EPA's
proposed action are voluminously presented in the numerous supporting
memoranda contained in the public docket for the proposed rulemaking.
See, e.g., the documents titled Residual Risk Assessment for the SOCMI
Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule; Analysis of Control Options for Process Vents and
Storage Vessels to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI
Source Category for Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of Control
Options for Equipment Leaks to Reduce Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide
in the SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to HON; Analysis of
Control Options for Heat Exchange Systems to Reduce Residual Risk of
Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for Processes Subject to
HON; Analysis of Control Options for Wastewater Streams to Reduce
Residual Risk of Ethylene Oxide in the SOCMI Source Category for
Processes Subject to HON; (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0085, -0074, -0003, -0071, and -0087, respectively).
e. P&R I NESHAP Rule Changes Related to Chloroprene
i. Process Vents and Storage Vessels in Chloroprene Service
Comment: A commenter argued that the EPA's proposal at 40 CFR
63.484(u), 40 CFR 63.485(y), and 40 CFR 63.487(j) to require a control
device that reduces chloroprene by greater than or equal to 99.9
percent by weight is unreasonable in light of the EPA's involvement in
the decision to install a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) at one
facility with a chloroprene destruction efficiency of 98 percent and
the ``monomer emission reduction project'' (MERP) system \46\ with a
chloroprene destruction efficiency of 99.3 percent. The commenter made
the following points regarding these installations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The commenter stated that the MERP was installed to route
vent emissions from the monomer process unit to the facility's
halogen acid production furnace. The MERP is essentially a complex
of vent headers (with condensate collection posts) to route
emissions predominately from the Monomer area of the Neoprene
Facility, as well as emissions from nine permitted hazardous waste
tanks (containing liquid hazardous wastes) to the facility's halogen
acid production furnace. The MERP conveys approximately 300 to 600
CFM of chloroprene vent emissions from currently ``Group 2''
classified emission units under the HON subpart G. Stack tests have
demonstrated a 99.3 percent destruction or removal efficiency for
the halogen acid production furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the first six months of 2016, the facility engaged in
numerous meetings with both the EPA and the LDEQ to discuss options for
reducing chloroprene emissions, including different types of control
devices. Records of these discussions show that, in October 2016, the
facility presented slides to the EPA and the LDEQ that summarized
control device options, including a direct-fired thermal oxidizer (the
only option that could achieve a chloroprene destruction efficiency of
99.9 percent) and an RTO, which was expected to have a chloroprene
destruction efficiency of 98 percent. As the slide indicated, however,
the cost of operating a direct-fired thermal oxidizer would be very
high because it would burn enormous amounts of natural gas. This is why
in June 2016, the facility proposed to install an RTO, which would have
similar up-front capital costs but would have much lower operating
costs (and much lower CO2 emissions) because it would
require much less natural gas to operate.
In December 2016, the LDEQ held a large public meeting at its
headquarters, with the EPA and the Department of Justice in attendance.
Before this meeting, an EPA researcher advised EPA officials that, to
achieve a risk-level of 1-in-10,000, ambient concentrations of
chloroprene in the community could be no higher than 0.2 ug/m\3\. His
memorandum making this assertion was also released publicly. At this
meeting, the facility presented results of an air dispersion modeling
study, which showed then-existing (2016) ambient concentrations and the
concentrations that would be expected if the facility implemented the
emission reduction projects it had proposed, including the installation
of an RTO with a chloroprene destruction efficiency of 98 percent. The
modeling results presented to the EPA, the LDEQ, and the public showed
that offsite concentrations would be significantly reduced but would
still be higher than 0.2 ug/m\3\.
Following the public hearing, the facility, the EPA, and the LDEQ
finalized the terms of a voluntary Administrative Order on Consent,
which the facility and the LDEQ signed on January 6, 2017. The EPA and
lawyers from the Department of Justice were present for all significant
discussions, and the EPA was heavily involved in the Administrative
Order on Consent's development, providing numerous comments and making
a number of demands reflected in the order. Under the Administrative
Order on Consent, the facility agreed to ``install and operate . . . a
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO)'' capable of ``achiev[ing] at least
a 98 percent [destruction or removal efficiency].'' The facility also
agreed to install the MERP and to achieve an 85 percent reduction in
total chloroprene emissions from the facility, principally from the
``Chloroprene'' Unit, to the facility's halogen acid production
furnace.
The commenter claimed that these projects reduced facility
chloroprene emissions by 85 percent at a capital cost of $35 million,
plus a significant increase in annual operating costs; and of the $35
million, the MERP cost approximately $9 million. The commenter
requested that the EPA take this history into account as it develops
the final rule given that it is unreasonable to ignore the investments
that the facility recently made to reduce chloroprene emissions when
they were made under the oversight of the LDEQ and the EPA, and with
the EPA's full knowledge of the 2010 IRIS inhalation URE value for
chloroprene. The commenter contended that the very small emission
reductions that would be achieved by increasing the chloroprene
destruction efficiency to 99.9 percent are enormously expensive, more
than $21 million per ton annually. The commenter said the current
chloroprene emissions from the existing RTO are approximately 0.84 tpy;
therefore, if all the emission streams currently routed to the existing
RTO were instead routed to a new direct-fired thermal oxidizer with a
chloroprene destruction efficiency to 99.9 percent, chloroprene
emissions would be reduced from 0.84 tpy to 0.04 tpy (an annual
reduction of 0.79 tons). The commenter claimed that the annualized cost
of achieving this is almost $3.7 million, and the cost-per-ton of
chloroprene emission reduction would be more than $4.6 million. The
commenter submitted a similar analysis for their MERP system and
claimed that if all the vent streams currently controlled by the MERP
were instead routed to a control device with a chloroprene destruction
efficiency of 99.9 percent (testing has demonstrated that the MERP
achieves a destruction or removal efficiency of 99.3 percent on an
overall basis), the reduction in annual chloroprene emissions would be
50-60 pounds, depending on production.
The commenter said that they hired consultants to evaluate multiple
options for control device configuration that would achieve a
chloroprene destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent as required by the
proposed rule. The commenter said that modifying their existing RTO to
achieve a chloroprene destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent is
[[Page 42985]]
not possible given that high levels of chlorine in their exhaust
streams would poison the catalyst. The commenter added that even if
their existing RTO could achieve a chloroprene destruction efficiency
of 99.9 percent, it does not have capacity to accommodate the
additional streams that would have to be routed to it under the
proposed rule; thus, the proposed rule would require the installation
of one or more new control devices that could accommodate very high air
flows containing very low concentrations of VOC, including chloroprene.
The commenter provided specific details of other control options and
acknowledged that the destruction efficiency of an RTO can be increased
to 99.9 percent by adding an additional oxidation step (which involves
the installation of a polishing catalyst bed in the stack that reheats
the treated gas); however, the commenter asserted that all other
options that they evaluated (e.g., installing new RTOs and/or direct
fired thermal oxidizers) would require enormous amounts of fuel
consumption, quench water, and power consumption only to achieve
minimum reductions.
The commenter asserted that the EPA's cost estimate to install a
new direct fired thermal oxidizer is ``far from realistic'' given that
their consultant estimated the equipment purchase costs for a new
direct fired thermal oxidizer with recuperative heat exchange
capabilities would be approximately $12 million and total annual costs
of $39 million. The commenter said the EPA assumed a slightly smaller
direct fired thermal oxidizer than what they believe would be necessary
and the EPA estimated an equipment purchase cost of $5 million and
total annual costs of $10.1 million; however, the commenter asserted
that it is not clear if the EPA's estimate includes the additional
scrubber capacity or the high nickel alloy materials that would be
needed for certain components. The commenter added that the EPA has not
estimated the costs that would be required to upgrade the electrical
and natural gas infrastructure, or expand the wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP), which are all actions that would be necessary to install
a new direct fired thermal oxidizer.
In summary, the commenter claimed that given that it is not
possible to modify their existing RTO and MERP to achieve a chloroprene
destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent, the proposed rule would leave
the facility with $35 million of stranded investment which was made
fewer than 6 years ago to reduce chloroprene emissions in consultation
with the EPA. The commenter said that even though the option of
installing a direct-fired thermal oxidizer was discussed in 2016, at no
point did the EPA suggest that an RTO would not be sufficient or that a
direct-fired thermal oxidizer might be required. The commenter asserted
that there has been no change since 2016 in either (1) the EPA's views
about the risk of chloroprene exposure or (2) its understanding of the
offsite concentrations that would be achieved under the Administrative
Order on Consent.
Response: We reevaluated whether we could change the proposed 99.9
percent by weight reduction standard to 98 percent by weight given the
commenter's arguments that their existing RTO and MERP cannot achieve a
chloroprene reduction of 99.9 percent by weight. In our reevaluation
for the final rule, we determined that revising the performance
standard for process vents and storage vessels in chloroprene service
(from a 99.9 percent by weight reduction requirement as proposed to a
98 percent by weight reduction requirement in the final rule) will
still maintain the MIR at 100-in-1 million for the Neoprene Production
source category and thereby result in the source category chloroprene
emissions being reduced to acceptable levels. We have made this change
in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.484(u)(1), 40 CFR 63.485(y)(1), 40 CFR
63.487(j)(1), and 40 CFR 63.510(a)(2). While considering the current
chloroprene emissions from both the existing RTO (0.84 tpy) and MERP
(0.02 tpy based on our review of the emissions inventory calculations),
we have determined the revised performance requirements for the final
rule will still reduce risk from Neoprene Production source category
emissions to an acceptable level and also provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health (as was proposed) for the Neoprene
Production source category. We also have determined that no additional
requirements are needed to prevent an adverse environmental effect (as
was proposed). In light of this, we believe the commenter's existing
RTO and MERP can be used to meet the revised requirements for the final
rule and would no longer be considered a stranded investment as the
commenter has claimed.
Comment: A commenter said they support the EPA's proposed rule text
at 40 CFR 63.485(y) that requires owners and operators to reduce
emissions of chloroprene from continuous front-end process vents in
chloroprene service at affected sources producing neoprene by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control device
that reduces chloroprene by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by
weight, to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or
to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents. The commenter said
they also support the EPA's proposed rule text at 40 CFR 63.487(j) to
add these same chloroprene standards for batch front-end process vents
at affected sources producing neoprene. However, another commenter
argued that the EPA's oversimplification of the design configurations
necessary to comply with these proposed performance standards (which
the EPA presented in Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0083) results
in cost estimates that are much too low. The commenter asserted the EPA
did not consider in their analysis the following technical and process
safety challenges:
The EPA assumed that all the sources at this commenter's
facility are to be enclosed and routed to a new direct fired thermal
oxidizer are in close proximity to each other, but the wash belts are
actually located in the Finishing building, which is separate from the
Poly building.
The EPA did not account for complicated duct and piping
(e.g., unique pipe lengths, diameters, number of bends), which also
impacts pump specifications and other equipment such as the blower.
The existing thermal oxidizer cannot accommodate the
additional vent streams from the wash belts (at current flow rates).
Each wash belt vent hood operates at approximately 28,000 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm), and total chloroprene emissions for both
wash belt vents combined is approximately 3.3 tpy (2022 reported
value).
Installing an enclosure around the wash belts creates
safety concerns given that the wash belt blower motors are equipped
with variable frequency drives which can change air flow through the
vent hoods; the potential variability in air flows would need to be
evaluated by an industrial hygienist to ensure compliance with
personnel exposure requirements, or to make recommendations for
additional protective equipment.
Wash belts require frequent, manual intervention from area
personnel to ensure stable operation; workers must have physical access
to the wash belt area to perform routine maintenance and repairs.
Wash belt enclosures would need to be transparent to allow
visual inspection of the process without entry and would also need to
be durable enough to withstand frequent disassembly and reassembly.
[[Page 42986]]
Any changes in airflows or pressures, such as those that
will occur when installing enclosures and adjusting blower speeds (for
the wash belts), will need to be evaluated to ensure that product
quality standards are achievable and to ensure that production rates
are not negatively impacted. The finishing process is designed to
supply very precise air flows and pressure differentials throughout in
order to maintain adhesion of the web (Neoprene product film) to the
girt (flexible sheeting that guides the web through the process).
The commenter submitted a cost estimate of $3.6 million for the
purchase of a direct fired thermal oxidizer with a chloroprene
destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent that would be sized to
accommodate waste gas from the wash belts. The commenter estimated the
total cost for installing and operating the thermal oxidizer would be
about $18 million. The commenter asserted that because of the low VOC
content in the exhaust stream, natural gas consumption would be high,
and the total annualized costs would be almost $3.0 million (not
including the capital costs for the enclosure and associated
infrastructure). The commenter stated that the cost-per-ton of
chloroprene emission reduction would be approximately $0.9 million
(based on the 3.3 tpy of chloroprene emissions reported in their 2022
inventory). The commenter added that operating the new thermal oxidizer
would contribute to environmental harm including 16,200 metric tons a
year of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).
Response: We acknowledge commenters' support and opposition for the
provision at 40 CFR 63.485(y) that requires owners and operators to
reduce emissions of chloroprene from continuous front-end process vents
in chloroprene service at affected sources producing neoprene by
venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control
device that reduces chloroprene by greater than or equal to 99 percent
by weight, to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent,
or to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents. We also
acknowledge commenters' support and opposition for the provision at 40
CFR 63.487(j) to add these same chloroprene standards for batch front-
end process vents at affected sources producing neoprene.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 88 FR 25080,
April 25, 2023), we had determined that the only viable way to meet
these proposed standards is to enclose all of the polymer batch
reactors, emulsion storage vessels, strainers, and wash belt dryers and
route the vapors to a thermal oxidizer (and thereby reduce chloroprene
emissions from these sources, which are fugitive in nature); and the
result of this control option would reduce chloroprene emissions from
the polymer building, unstripped resin emulsion storage vessels, and
wash belt dryers by 11.3 tpy (from 12 tpy to 0.7 tpy). Although we
continue to stand by our analysis that chloroprene emissions from these
emission sources must be reduced to decrease risk posed by emissions
from neoprene production processes to an acceptable level, we
reevaluated whether we could change the 99.9 percent by weight
reduction standard to 98 percent by weight given a commenter's
arguments (as discussed in section 3.1 of the document titled Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and
Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking)
that their existing thermal oxidizer cannot achieve a chloroprene
reduction of 99.9 percent by weight. In our reevaluation for the final
rule, we determined that revising the performance standard for process
vents and storage vessels in chloroprene service (from a 99.9 percent
by weight reduction requirement as proposed to a 98 percent by weight
reduction requirement in the final rule) will still maintain the MIR at
100-in-1 million for the Neoprene Production source category. The
result of this revision in the final rule will reduce chloroprene
emissions from the polymer building, unstripped resin emulsion storage
vessels, and the wash belt dryers from 12 tpy to 0.9 tpy (i.e., a
reduction of 11.1 tpy chloroprene in lieu of 11.3 tpy as proposed). We
have determined these revised performance requirements for the final
rule will still reduce risk to an acceptable level and also provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health (as was proposed) from
P&R I emission sources. We also have determined that no additional
requirements are needed to prevent an adverse environmental effect (as
was proposed).
We also acknowledge that the wash belt dryers are located in the
finishing building, which is separate from the polymer building; and at
proposal, we incorrectly assumed these process vents were front-end
process vents when in actuality they are considered back-end process
vents according to NESHAP subpart U. As such, we are clarifying in the
final rule that the requirements we are finalizing for controlling
chloroprene from process vents in the Neoprene Production source
category, not only applies to continuous front-end process vents in
chloroprene service and batch front-end process vents in chloroprene
service, but also back-end process vents in chloroprene service. In
other words, we are finalizing at 40 CFR 63.494(a)(7) a requirement
that owners and operators reduce emissions of chloroprene from back-end
process vents in chloroprene service at affected sources producing
neoprene by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-
flare control device that reduces chloroprene by greater than or equal
to 98 percent by weight, to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each
process vent, or to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents.
We anticipate that the facility will still need to install an
additional thermal oxidizer in order to comply with the final
performance standard for process vents and storage vessels in
chloroprene service. We also note that while the commenter claims that
the 3.3 tpy chloroprene emissions from the wash belt dryers were
reported in their 2022 inventory, we stand by our decision to use the
facility's 2019 emissions inventory which shows 3.9 tpy chloroprene
emissions from the wash belt dryers. As previously mentioned, the
facility's emissions inventory was provided to the EPA pursuant to our
CAA section 114 request. In particular, the EPA requested emission
inventories from the past 5 years (i.e., 2016-2020) from the facility's
operations as part of this request. As 2017 NEI data did not represent
current controls being employed at Denka Performance Elastomers, LLC,
the EPA chose to use the most current data it had available and that is
reflective of current operations and emissions. Given concerns about
decreased production and emissions in 2020 from the COVID-19 pandemic,
the EPA elected to use Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC's 2019
emissions inventory submitted as part of the CAA section 114 request in
its risk assessment for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source
categories in lieu of the 2017 NEI data. Even if we were to revise
emissions based on the facility's 2022 emissions inventory, we continue
to believe our cost estimate to install permanent total enclosures, a
thermal oxidizer, and ductwork and associated support equipment (using
the procedures in the EPA's 2002 Control
[[Page 42987]]
Cost Manual) is reasonable, and note that cost does not play a role in
setting standards that are necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
level under step one of the Benzene NESHAP approach codified in CAA
section 112(f). Furthermore, with regard to a commenter's specific
objections to installing a permanent total enclosure around their wash
belts/dryers, we note that even though we costed out permanent total
enclosures for these emission sources in our proposal, there is no
explicit requirement in the proposed rule, or final rule, to install
permanent total enclosures around these emission sources. We opted for
this option as the most conservative way to collect the fugitive
chloroprene emissions from the wash belts/dryers and route them to a
control device such as a thermal oxidizer. Nothing in the proposed
rule, or final rule, prevents the facility from doing something
different than installing a permanent total enclosure around their wash
belts/dryers so long as the owner or operator can achieve the emission
standard we are finalizing at 40 CFR 63.494(a)(7) for back-end process
vents (i.e., the requirement that owners and operators reduce emissions
of chloroprene from back-end process vents in chloroprene service at
affected sources producing neoprene by venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to a non-flare control device that reduces
chloroprene by greater than or equal to 98 percent by weight, to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than 5
lb/yr for all combined process vents).
Even so, we anticipate cost to be less of a concern for the final
rule given that the facility should be able to use their existing
thermal oxidizer to meet the revised performance standard (reduce
chloroprene by greater than or equal to 98 percent by weight) for at
least some of their process vents and storage vessels in chloroprene
service.
ii. Wastewater in Chloroprene Service
Comment: A commenter said that they support the proposed provision
at 40 CFR 63.501(a)(10)(iv) to revise the Group 1 wastewater stream
threshold to include wastewater streams in chloroprene service (i.e.,
wastewater streams with total annual average concentration of
chloroprene greater than or equal to 10 ppmw at any flow rate).
However, another commenter said the EPA's analysis of the costs and
emission reductions associated with reducing chloroprene emissions from
wastewater streams at neoprene production processes (see Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0092) has several major flaws. The commenter
said the EPA's analysis suggests that the proposed control requirements
for wastewater would reduce chloroprene emissions by 17.7 tpy, when in
fact the emission reductions would be closer to 1 tpy; therefore, the
EPA's analysis substantially overstates the emission reductions that
would be achieved, and the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the
proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.501(a)(10)(iv). The commenter
provided the following critiques of the EPA's analysis:
there are approximately 13.5 tpy of wastewater in
chloroprene service that pass through the WWTP, not 26.3, which the EPA
incorrectly used in their analysis.
although the EPA acknowledges that some controls may
already be in place, their analysis goes on to analyze the
effectiveness of the proposed requirements based on the assumption that
there are no such controls; however, the facility already employs an
air stripping system to treat the decanter and kettle line wastewater
streams. The air stripping occurs in the air sparging tank, which is
routed to the onsite RTO. Testing suggests that the air sparging tank
achieves a control efficiency of approximately 95 percent. Thus, of the
7.5 tpy of chloroprene contained in these 2 streams, all but ~0.4 tpy
are removed via air stripping and directed to RTO. This amount, ~0.4
tpy, then goes to the WWTP, which includes a biological treatment
system that reduces it by approximately 80 percent, meaning that
chloroprene emissions from the decanter and kettle line streams are
likely less than 0.1 tpy. Thus, accounting for the control efficiency
of the air sparging tank and the biologic treatment system, almost 99
percent of the 7.5 tpy contained in the decanter and kettle line
wastewater streams is already controlled. Even if steam stripping
achieves a 99 percent capture efficiency in these streams, it would
only reduce emissions by about 0.025 tpy (to 0.075 tpy as compared to
0.1 tpy today).
based on limited testing of the air stripper rundown
streams, they contain approximately 6.0 tpy of chloroprene. These
streams are routed to the outdoor brine pit, which then discharges to
the WWTP. The EPA did not consider that the WWTP includes biological
control that currently reduces chloroprene emissions by approximately
80 percent. It is true that some emissions to air occur as the
wastewater is conveyed through the outdoor brine pit and to the WWTP,
but it is incorrect for the EPA to consider it ``uncontrolled.''
Assuming the Fe of 68 percent suggested by the EPA, the maximum
fraction of the mass of chloroprene that could end up as an air
emission is about 4 tpy before biological control. Applying the 80
percent estimated biological control removal rate, current emissions
are approximately 0.8 tpy from the air stripper rundown streams. Even
if the EPA's assumption of a 99 percent removal efficiency for steam
stripping is accurate, it would reduce emissions by about 0.8 tpy from
the stripper rundown streams.
The commenter concluded that when adding the 0.8 tpy from the
stripper rundown streams to the 0.1 tpy reduction from the decanter and
kettle line wastewater streams, the EPA's proposed steam stripping
requirement is likely to reduce current chloroprene emissions by about
1 tpy (not by 17.7 tpy as the EPA had determined). The commenter added
that there is also uncertainty as to whether steam stripping would
actually achieve 99 percent removal of the low concentrations of
chloroprene in wastewater given that chloroprene is a halogenated
alkane, and no information has been presented that is specific to steam
stripping of chloroprene from wastewater at the concentrations present
in wastewater at the facility. The commenter deduced that when using
their expected actual emissions reductions of about 1 tpy, the cost
effectiveness would be closer to $7.5 million per ton removed (without
considering the cost of installing and operating a thermal oxidizer
that would be required under the EPA's proposal to handle the
chloroprene from the steam stripper unit), and not $426,900 per ton as
the EPA has estimated.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for and
opposition of the proposed wastewater provisions at 40 CFR
63.501(a)(10)(iv). We are finalizing these provisions as proposed. We
disagree with the commenter's assertion that 13.5 tpy of wastewater in
chloroprene service pass through the WWTP. We also disagree that our
emissions reductions were overestimated. We believe 26.3 tpy of
wastewater in chloroprene service pass through the WWTP (i.e., the
amount of chloroprene entering the air sparging tank) based on our
review of emissions inventory calculations for wastewater entering the
WWTP. We maintain that 17.7 tpy of emissions reductions is appropriate,
based on a mass balance of the information provided in the emissions
inventory calculations. The results of our mass balance suggest that
our initial analysis is appropriate.
We also disagree with the commenter and maintain it was appropriate
to
[[Page 42988]]
assume no controls during our initial analysis such that a steam
stripper would be placed before the air sparging tank. Simply put, the
P&R I NESHAP (which references the HON wastewater requirements)
requires all wastewater collection system components (tanks, surface
impoundments, containers, individual drain systems, and oil-water
separators) to be covered and upstream of the wastewater treatment
process. However, the facility's wastewater treatment system is
configured with an air sparging tank (air stripper), followed by an
outdoor brine pit (open to the atmosphere), followed by biological
treatment. Furthermore, the commenter claims their air stripper
achieves approximately 95 percent control, but did not provide any data
to corroborate this control efficiency. When taking the configuration
of the facility's wastewater treatment system into account, we assumed
no controls, since wastewater streams flow through a control device
with an unknown control efficiency directly into an open brine pit.
Also, contrary to the commenter's remark regarding steam stripper
performance, we believe the use of 99 percent removal of chloroprene
from steam stripping is appropriate based on its Fr value. In the
document titled Analysis of Control Options for Wastewater Streams to
Reduce Residual Risk of Chloroprene from Neoprene Production Processes
Subject to P&R I (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0092), we
explain that the EPA calculated the Fr values for a variety of HAP
during the original rulemaking of the HON. The Fr is the fraction of a
HAP that is stripped from wastewater and is an indicator of the extent
to which a HAP is effectively removed during the steam stripping
process. For chloroprene, the Fr has always been 99 percent in Table 9
to NESHAP subpart G and we maintain this is reflective of the current
technology.
Finally, we remind the commenter that, due to the risk associated
with chloroprene, cost does not play a role in setting standards that
are necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level under step one of
the Benzene NESHAP approach codified in CAA section 112(f). Regardless
of whether or not emissions reductions were underestimated (which we
disagree with), a higher cost-effectiveness is not grounds for
reevaluating the proposed provisions at 40 CFR 63.501(a)(10)(iv).
iii. Chloroprene Facility-Wide Cap
Comment: A commenter said they support the EPA's proposed rule text
at 40 CFR 63.483(a)(10) that requires owners and operators to comply
with a facility-wide chloroprene emissions cap of 3.8 tpy in any
consecutive 12-month period for all neoprene production emission
sources. However, another commenter argued that it is impossible to
know whether the chloroprene emissions cap of 3.8 tpy is simply a
``backstop'' or an additional requirement that goes beyond the proposed
requirements to control emissions of chloroprene from maintenance vents
and PRDs, and process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater ``in
chloroprene service.'' The commenter asserted that the EPA does not
appear to have determined whether full compliance with the proposed
requirements to control chloroprene from maintenance vents and PRDs,
and process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater ``in chloroprene
service'' would reduce the facility-wide emissions below the proposed
chloroprene emissions cap of 3.8 tpy. The commenter also asserted that
the EPA has not estimated the costs of reducing facility-wide emissions
below this cap, nor does the EPA provide any details about the type of
monitoring that would be required to demonstrate compliance with it.
The commenter argued that given the EPA's determination that the
chloroprene emissions cap of 3.8 tpy would protect public health with
an ample margin of safety, the proposed requirements to control
chloroprene from maintenance vents and PRDs, and process vents, storage
vessels, and wastewater ``in chloroprene service'' are unlawful if they
would force the facility to reduce emissions appreciably below 3.8 tpy.
The commenter said that the EPA does not have authority to require
emission reductions that go beyond what is necessary to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety, unless they are based on cost-
effective improvements in control technology under CAA section
112(d)(6).
Another commenter provided several reasons why the chloroprene
emissions cap of 3.8 tpy is inappropriate, including: (1) The EPA back-
calculated this cap from a flawed risk assessment; (2) the cap is
unverifiable and therefore not enforceable, particularly here where it
encompasses not only non-flare point sources (which can, with some
effort, be properly monitored) but also flare and numerous fugitive
sources (whose emissions simply cannot be tested, monitored, and
verified); and (3) there have recently been large problems with
``unknown'' and therefore unreported emissions at the facility (e.g.,
in 2022, the EPA discovered that the facility was using an unpermitted
brine pit to allow poly-kettle waste to off-gas chloroprene).
Response: We are not finalizing the proposed requirement at 40 CFR
63.483(a)(10) that would have required owners and operators to comply
with a chloroprene emissions cap of 3.8 tpy in any consecutive 12-month
period for all neoprene production emission sources. The proposed
facility-wide chloroprene emissions cap was intended to address unknown
or uncertain emission sources in the Neoprene Production source
category, including emissions from back-end process operations.
However, we agree with a commenter that the proposed facility-wide
chloroprene emissions cap is confusing on how it would be applied
beyond the proposed requirements for emission sources in chloroprene
service. Instead, we believe the fenceline monitoring requirements that
we are finalizing will serve as a reasonable backstop for limiting
emissions and addressing fugitive and any unknown emission sources in
the Neoprene Production source category as well as whole-facility
chloroprene emissions. We are also clarifying in the final rule that
the requirements we proposed for controlling chloroprene from process
vents in the Neoprene Production source category apply not only to
continuous front-end process vents in chloroprene service and batch
front-end process vents in chloroprene service, but also to back-end
process vents in chloroprene service. For more details about this, see
our responses to comments in section IV.A.3.e.i of this preamble.
iv. Other Chloroprene Related Requirements
Comment: A commenter said they supported the EPA's proposed rule
text at 40 CFR 63.509 sampling and analysis procedures for owners and
operators of affected sources producing neoprene to demonstrate that
process equipment does, or does not, meet the proposed definition of
being ``in chloroprene service.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the
sampling and analysis procedures used to determine whether process
equipment is ``in chloroprene service.'' We are making the following
minor changes in the final rule to clarify our intent: (1) For process
vents, we have clarified within the definition of ``in chloroprene
service'' that the 5 lb/yr chloroprene mass threshold for combined
process vents be on a EPPU-by-EPPU basis; (2) For storage vessels, we
are revising the phrasing of ``sampling and analysis is performed as
specified in Sec. 63.509''
[[Page 42989]]
within the definition of ``in chloroprene service'' to ``the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.509 are performed''; and (3) we have clarified at
40 CFR 63.509(a) that the sampling site shall be after the last
recovery device (if any recovery devices are present) but prior to the
inlet of any control device that is present and prior to release to the
atmosphere.
Comment: A commenter (0172) requested that the EPA recognize in the
final rule that OGI is effective for detecting chloroprene leaks and
work with their facility to develop a protocol for LDAR that could be
included as a compliance option. The commenter claimed that the LDAR
requirement in the proposed rule would require them to hire additional
technicians (likely 3 additional workers) and purchase additional
equipment. The commenter said that they spoke to leak detection experts
at Montrose Environmental who said that a forward looking infrared
cooled G304 camera would likely be an effective tool for monitoring and
detecting chloroprene leaks. The commenter stated that they completed a
one-day field test with such a camera and found that it was effective
for detecting chloroprene leaks.
Response: We did not propose control options for equipment leaks to
reduce chloroprene risk from the Neoprene Production source category.
To reduce risk from the Neoprene Production source category to an
acceptable level, we proposed to require control of chloroprene for:
(1) Process vents, (2) storage vessels, and (3) wastewater ``in
chloroprene service.'' We also proposed requirements to reduce
chloroprene emissions from maintenance vents and PRDs. See section
III.B.2.b of the preamble to the proposed rule for more details (88 FR
25080, April 25, 2023). However, we did make an error in the document
titled Proposed Regulation Edits for 40 CFR part 63 Subpart U: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I
Polymers and Resins (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0066)
that suggests at 40 CFR 63.502(a)(6) we were proposing to regulate
certain equipment in chloroprene service.
The EPA has not provided an OGI-only option for detection for
chloroprene leaks. Although the commenter mentions a one-day study
performed by Montrose Environmental on the effectiveness of a
particular OGI camera's ability to see chloroprene emissions, no
information from that study was submitted. Additionally, no information
on the detection level determined during the study or the environmental
conditions of the study were submitted. Because the detection
capabilities of OGI cameras are highly influenced by environmental
conditions, this is important data to understand, and it is unlikely
that a one-day study would provide information on the capabilities of
the camera in the range of environmental conditions under which field
surveys would normally be conducted.
Although the EPA recently finalized a protocol for using OGI in the
detection of VOC and methane leaks (40 CFR part 60 appendix K), we note
that the protocol is geared towards midwave OGI cameras that operate
with a filter in a particular spectral range (around 3.3 microns) where
methane and many VOC compounds have a spectral peak. The type of OGI
camera the protocol is geared towards is not suited to finding leaks of
chloroprene because chloroprene does not have a strong peak in the
spectral range of these cameras, which means that only very high leaks
of chloroprene would be visible to these cameras. The OGI camera
mentioned by the commenter has a filter in a different spectral range.
The EPA has not studied this camera to understand its detection
capabilities, especially in regard to chloroprene, which is a risk
driver for the source category, nor could the EPA readily find
information on the ability of this OGI camera to see leaks of
chloroprene. Because the leak definitions for the source category are
low, on the order of 500 to 1000 ppm for most equipment, it is
extremely important to understand the detection capability of an OGI
camera being used at these sources, especially considering that while
the OGI cameras the EPA has studied are effective at finding large
leaks for many compounds, OGI cameras tend to be less effective at
finding low-level leaks.
Even so, P&R I facilities currently have an option to use OGI
through an alternative work practice to detect leaks from equipment at
40 CFR 63.11(c), (d), and (e). This alternative work practice includes
provisions for using OGI in combination with annual monitoring using
EPA Method 21 (and not as an alternative). The alternative work
practice is not geared towards a particular type of OGI camera, and
instead, requires owners and operators to perform daily instrument
checks based on the detection levels and concentration of detectable
chemicals in the equipment being surveyed.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive benchmark on maximum individual lifetime risk
(MIR) of approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023;
see also 54 FR 38045, September 9, 1989.) \47\ We weigh all health risk
factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer
MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum TOSHI, the maximum acute HQ, the
extent and distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed
population, multipathway risks, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ We generally draw no ``bright lines'' of acceptability
regarding cancer or noncancer risks from source category HAP
emissions, and it is always important to consider the specific
uncertainties of the emissions and health effects information
regarding the source category in question when deciding exactly what
level of cancer and noncancer risk should be considered acceptable.
In addition, the source category-specific decision of what
constitutes an acceptable level of risk should be a holistic one;
that is, it should simultaneously consider all potential health
impacts--chronic and acute, cancer and noncancer, and multipathway--
along with their uncertainties, when determining the acceptable
level of source category risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since proposal, our determinations regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects have not
changed. However, after proposal, commenters provided updated
information on their facilities, including specific information
regarding use of the TCEQ modeling guidelines to calculate effective
flare stack parameters. We updated the risk assessment for the SOCMI
and Neoprene Production source categories considering the comments
received on modeling flares. The revised risk assessment (see the risk
reports, Residual Risk Assessment for the SOCMI Source Category in
Support of the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule and Residual
Risk Assessment for the Polymers & Resins I Neoprene Production Source
Category in Support of the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,
which are available in the docket for this rulemaking) shows that,
after application of controls finalized in this rulemaking, the MIR for
each of the source categories is 100-in-1 million. Therefore, after
application of the EtO-specific controls for process vents, storage
vessels, equipment leaks, heat exchange systems, and wastewater, and
the requirements to reduce EtO emissions from maintenance vents and
PRDs, we find that the risks are acceptable for the SOCMI source
[[Page 42990]]
category and that the final HON standards will achieve an ample margin
of safety to protect human health from risks presented by HON emission
sources. Also, after application of the chloroprene-specific controls
for process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater, and the
requirements to reduce chloroprene emissions from maintenance vents and
PRDs, we find that the risks are acceptable for the Neoprene Production
source category and that the final P&R I standards will achieve an
ample margin of safety to protect human health from risks presented by
neoprene production emission sources.
B. Technology Review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II Source Categories
NESHAP and NSPS Review for the SOCMI Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for SOCMI, P&R
I, and P&R II source categories and CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) for the
SOCMI source category?
a. NESHAP
Based on our technology review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II
source categories, we proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) changes to
the HON and P&R I standards for heat exchange systems, storage vessels,
and process vents and we proposed no change under CAA section 112(d)(6)
to the P&R II standards for storage vessels and process vents. The P&R
II NESHAP currently does not regulate HAP emissions from heat exchange
systems, but we are finalizing, as proposed, requirements in the P&R II
NESHAP for heat exchange systems pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3). In addition, we proposed no change under CAA section 112(d)(6) for
transfer racks, wastewater streams, and equipment leaks. We also
proposed fenceline monitoring requirements under CAA section 112(d)(6).
We provide a summary of our findings, as proposed, in this section.
i. Heat Exchange Systems
In our technology review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source
categories, we identified one development in practices and processes
for HON and P&R I heat exchange systems, the use of the Modified El
Paso Method \48\ for monitoring for leaks from heat exchange systems.
We determined that this method is more effective in identifying leaks
and measures a larger number of compounds than the methods previously
required in the HON and the P&R I NESHAP. After evaluating state and
Federal regulations requiring the Modified El Paso Method, as well as
emission data collected for the Ethylene Production RTR (refer to
section II.D of the proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) and
the Ethylene Production RTR rulemaking docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0357), we proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to
require use of the Modified El Paso Method with a leak definition of
6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in
the stripping gas to further reduce HAP emissions from both new and
existing heat exchange systems, as well as to disallow delay of repair
of leaks if the measured concentration meets or exceeds 62 ppmv. Based
on an evaluation of incremental HAP cost effectiveness to increase the
monitoring frequency, we proposed no changes to the monitoring
frequency previously required under the HON and the P&R I NESHAP for
monitoring for leaks from heat exchange systems, which continues to be
monthly monitoring in the first 6 months following startup of a source
and quarterly monitoring thereafter. We also proposed to require re-
monitoring at the monitoring location where a leak is identified to
ensure that any leaks found are fixed. Further, we proposed that none
of these proposed requirements for heat exchange systems apply to heat
exchange systems that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10
gallons per minute or less. Finally, we proposed that owners and
operators may use the current leak monitoring requirements for heat
exchange systems at 40 CFR 63.104(b) in lieu of using the Modified El
Paso Method provided that 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 atmospheres-
cubic meters/mol at 25 degrees Celsius. Refer to section III.C.1 of the
proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a summary of our
rationale for selecting the proposed leak method, leak definition, and
limitation on delay of repairs, as well as our rationale for retaining
the previous monitoring schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The Modified El Paso Method uses a dynamic or flow-through
system for air stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the
resultant off-gases for VOC using a common flame ionization detector
analyzer. The method is described in detail in Appendix P of the
TCEQ's Sampling Procedures Manual: The Air Stripping Method
(Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions from Water Sources. Appendix P is included
in the docket for this rulemaking (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0032).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Heat Exchange Systems Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are
Associated with Processes Subject to HON and for Heat Exchange Systems
that are Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and
Resins NESHAP; and Control Option Impacts for Heat Exchange Systems
that are Associated with Processes Subject to Group II Polymers and
Resins NESHAP (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0075).
ii. Storage Vessels
In our technology review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source
categories, we identified three options for reducing emissions from HON
and P&R I storage vessels. Refer to section III.C.2 of the proposal
preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a summary of the three
options. Based on our evaluation of the costs and emission reductions
of each of the three options, we proposed pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) to: (1) Revise the Group 1 HON and P&R I storage vessel
capacity and MTVP thresholds to reflect the MON existing source
threshold, which requires existing storage vessels between 38 m\3\ and
151 m\3\ with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 6.9 kilopascals
to reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95 percent utilizing a closed
vent system and control device, or reduce organic HAP emissions by
utilizing either an IFR, or an EFR, by routing the emissions to a
process or a fuel gas system, or by vapor balancing; and (2) in
addition to requirements specified in option 1, require upgraded deck
fittings \49\ and controls for guidepoles for all storage vessels
equipped with an IFR as already required in 40 CR 63, subpart WW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ This means that we require all openings in an IFR (except
those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents), rim space
vents, leg sleeves, and deck drains) to be equipped with a deck
cover, and the deck cover would be required to be equipped with a
gasket between the cover and the deck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Storage Vessels Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are
Associated with Processes Subject to HON, Storage Vessels Associated
with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and
Storage Vessels Associated with Processes Subject to Group II Polymers
and Resins NESHAP (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0073).
[[Page 42991]]
iii. Process Vents
In our technology review for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source
categories, we identified three options for reducing emissions from HON
process vents and P&R I continuous front-end process vents. Refer to
section III.C.3.a of the proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023) for a summary of the three options. Based on our evaluation of
the costs and emission reductions of each of the three options, we
proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the process vent
applicability threshold to redefine a HON Group 1 process vent and P&R
I Group 1 continuous front-end process vent (requiring control) as any
process vent that emits greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total
organic HAP. We also proposed removing the TRE concept in its entirety
and removing the 50 ppmv and 0.005 scmm Group 1 process vent
thresholds. In addition, we identified one option for reducing
emissions from P&R I batch front-end process vents and we proposed
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the process vent
applicability threshold to redefine a P&R I Group 1 batch front-end
process vent as a process vent that releases total annual organic HAP
emissions greater than or equal to 4,536 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr) from all
batch front-end process vents combined.
For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Continuous Process Vents Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are
Associated with Processes Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and
Batch Front-end Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to
Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with
Processes Subject to Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAP (see Docket
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0094).
iv. Fenceline Monitoring
We proposed a fenceline monitoring standard for the SOCMI and P&R I
source categories requiring owners and operators to monitor for any of
six specific HAP (i.e., benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride,
vinyl chloride, EtO, and chloroprene) if their site uses, produces,
stores, or emits any of them, and conduct root cause analysis and
corrective action upon exceeding the annual average concentration
action level set forth for each HAP.
b. NSPS
i. Process Vents
In our review of NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR (for SOCMI air
oxidation units, distillation operations, and reactor processes,
respectively), we identified certain advances in process operations
that were not identified or considered during development of the
original NSPS. Refer to section III.C.3.b of the proposal preamble (88
FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a detailed summary of these advances in
process operations. Based on our evaluation of statutory factors,
including costs and emission reductions, we proposed pursuant to CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B) revised NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa (which
are applicable to affected facilities for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification commences after April 25, 2023). We
proposed that the revised NSPS subparts encompass a suite of process
vent requirements, which include: (1) Removing the TRE index value
concept in its entirety and instead requiring owners and operators to
reduce emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all vent
streams of an affected facility (i.e., SOCMI air oxidation unit
processes, distillation operations, and reactor processes for which
construction, reconstruction, or modification commences after April 25,
2023) by 98 percent by weight or to a concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry
basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen, or combust the emissions in a
flare meeting the same operating and monitoring requirements for flares
that we are finalizing for flares subject to the HON; (2) eliminating
the relief valve discharge exemption from the definition of ``vent
stream'' such that any relief valve discharge to the atmosphere of a
vent stream is a violation of the emissions standard; (3) prohibiting
an owner or operator from bypassing the APCD at any time, and requiring
the owner or operator to report any such violation (including the
quantity of TOC released to the atmosphere); (4) requiring that flares
used to reduce emissions comply with the same flare operating and
monitoring requirements as those we have promulgated for flares used in
SOCMI-related NESHAP; (5) requiring work practice standards for
maintenance vents during startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection
of any of the air oxidation units, distillation operations, and reactor
processes affected facilities under the applicable NSPS where the
affected facility is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into
service; and (6) adding control device operational and monitoring
requirements for adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and regenerative
adsorbers that are regenerated offsite. For a detailed discussion of
the EPA's findings, refer to the document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B)
review for the SOCMI air oxidation unit processes, distillation
operations, and reactor processes NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR (see
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0011).
ii. Equipment Leaks
In our review of NSPS subpart VVa (for SOCMI equipment leaks), we
identified emission reduction measures used in practice related to LDAR
of certain equipment that achieve greater emission reductions than
those currently required by NSPS subpart VVa. Refer to section
III.C.6.b of the proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for a
summary of these measures. Based on our evaluation of statutory
factors, including costs and emission reductions, we proposed pursuant
to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) a revised NSPS subpart VVb applicable to
affected facilities for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commences after April 25, 2023. The revised NSPS VVb
includes the same requirements as in NSPS subpart VVa plus a
requirement that all gas/vapor and light liquid valves be monitored
monthly at a leak definition of 100 ppm and all connectors be monitored
once every 12 months at a leak definition of 500 ppm.
For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review for the SOCMI Equipment Leaks
NSPS Subpart VVa (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0096).
2. How did the technology review change for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R
II source categories, and NSPS review change for the SOCMI source
category?
We are finalizing the results of the NSPS review under CAA section
111(b)(1)(B) for the SOCMI source category as proposed (88 FR 25080,
April 25, 2023), with a change to the definition of ``capital
expenditure'' in NSPS subpart VVb to use a formula that better reflects
the trajectory of inflation. We are also finalizing the results of the
technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the SOCMI, P&R
I, and P&R II source categories as proposed (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023), with some changes to the fenceline monitoring requirements that
we proposed under the technology review for the SOCMI and P&R I source
categories, and also a minor change to clarify that, with regard to the
storage
[[Page 42992]]
vessel portion of the technology review, the Group 1 HON and P&R I
storage vessel capacity and MTVP thresholds apply to both new and
existing sources. For fenceline monitoring requirements, the final rule
establishes two action levels for chloroprene (i.e., one action level
under CAA section 112(d)(6) and another action level under CAA section
112(f)) in lieu of only one action level for this HAP, as proposed. We
are also finalizing: (1) Burden reduction measures to allow owners and
operators to skip fenceline measurement periods for specific monitors
with a history of measurements that are at or below certain action
levels; (2) a clarification that fenceline monitoring is required for
owners and operators with affected sources that produce, store, or emit
one or more of the target analytes; (3) a reduction in the requirements
for the minimum detection limit of alternative measurement approaches;
(4) clarifications on establishing the monitoring perimeter for both
sorbent tubes and canisters; (5) clarifications on the calculation of
[Delta]c when a site-specific monitoring plan is used to correct
monitoring location concentrations due to offsite impacts; (6) a change
in the required method detection limit for alternative test methods
from an order of magnitude below the action level to one-third of the
action level; and (7) with the exception of fenceline monitoring of
chloroprene at P&R I affected sources producing neoprene, a change in
the compliance date in the final rule to begin fenceline monitoring 2
years (instead of 1 year, as proposed) after the effective date of the
final rule. For P&R I affected sources producing neoprene, we have
changed the compliance date for fenceline monitoring of chloroprene to
begin no later than October 15, 2024, or upon startup, whichever is
later, subject to the owner or operator seeking the EPA's authorization
of an extension of up to 2 years from July 15, 2024.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review and NSPS
review, and what are our responses?
a. NESHAP
The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed
technology review. We received only minor comments requesting
clarifications associated with our technology review for heat exchange
systems and storage vessels. The comments and our specific responses to
these issues can be found in the document titled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins
Industry, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. Based
on these comments, we are finalizing revisions to require the Modified
El Paso Method for heat exchange systems, and we are finalizing
revisions to the Group 1 HON and P&R I storage vessel capacity and MTVP
thresholds to reflect the MON existing source threshold for both new
and existing sources.
We did not receive any comment with regard to the technology review
for transfer racks and wastewater streams. Furthermore, for equipment
leaks, the comments were generally either supportive of the
determination that no cost-effective developments from the technology
review were found, or that the Agency should re-open and reevaluate the
MACT standards for new technologies. Based on our review of the
comments received for equipment leaks, we are finalizing our
determination that no cost-effective developments exist and that it is
not necessary to revise these emission standards under CAA section
112(d)(6). For process vents, the EPA received additional information
from commenters on costs necessary for control of process vents that
emit greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP. We also
received several comments regarding the fenceline monitoring
requirements that we proposed under the technology review. This section
provides summaries of and responses to the key comments received
regarding: (1) The technology review amendments we proposed for HON
process vents and P&R I continuous front-end process vents, and (2) the
proposed fenceline monitoring requirements. Comment summaries and the
EPA's responses for additional issues raised regarding the proposed
requirements resulting from our technology review for the SOCMI, P&R I,
and P&R II source categories are in the document titled Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance Standards for
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and
Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
i. Process Vents
Comment: A commenter said they supported the EPA's proposed rule
text at 40 CFR 63.113(a)(4) and 40 CFR 63.485(l)(6), (o)(6), (p)(5),
and (x) that removes the TRE concept in its entirety from both the HON
and P&R I NESHAP. However, numerous commenters opposed removal and
provided the following arguments to reinforce their opposition:
The EPA lacks the statutory authority to remove the TRE
index value concept because it has offered no supportable basis as to
why removal would constitute a development in practices, processes, or
technologies under CAA section 112(d)(6).
The fact that another source category's standards do not
include the TRE index value concept is not a development in practice,
and the EPA offered no argument as to how it could possibly fit within
that box.
The fact that some facilities choose to control process
vents that would be exempt using the TRE index value does not indicate
that removing the TRE concept is a development in practices, processes,
or technologies. Electing not to use the TRE is a business choice, not
a technological development.
Complexity of an established compliance tool is not a
technological development.
The EPA has not adequately supported its proposal to
remove the TRE concept.
While it is true that certain facilities may have
designated process vents with a TRE index value above 1.0 as a Group 1
process vent, the reason behind this may not necessarily be voluntary
or driven by the desire to avoid the TRE calculation, but rather
facilities may be controlling these process vents to comply with state
or local regulations regarding VOCs or to meet a best available control
technology (BACT) limit.
The EPA's rationale for eliminating the TRE index value
from the HON rule due to variations in other MACT rules is flawed given
that the EPA did not remove the TRE index value during the revision of
the MON rule and distinguishing between Group 1 and Group 2 process
vents in the Ethylene Production source category is irrelevant.
Even though some process vents with a TRE index value
above 1.0 are controlled at certain facilities, that does not imply
that controlling all process vents with TRE index values above 1.0 is
appropriate or cost-effective.
Facilities often use source test results to determine TRE
calculation inputs (even for vent streams with a TRE index value
greater than 4.0), and this approach is neither complex nor uncertain
to interpret.
[[Page 42993]]
Despite the EPA's assertion that enforcing the TRE index
value ``can be'' arduous due to its theoretical nature, no instances
have been provided where verifying a TRE index value calculation posed
challenges for an agency or contradicted actual cost effectiveness at a
facility. The number of inputs to the TRE index value calculation is
proportional to the number of measurable organic compounds in the vent
stream; and some facilities have very few organic compounds in process
vents, so the inputs are minimal, and if those inputs are determined by
other allowed methods (e.g., source tests, permit limits), then
verification of these inputs is clearly not problematic.
Perceived complexity is not a basis for removing the
option.
The TRE index value has been an integral part of many
technology-based air standards since its initial development, serving
as a mechanism for determining cost effectiveness and triggering the
requirements for process vent control (see, e.g., the preamble to the
1994 HON adoption, which states that the TRE concept is appropriate
because it ``can be used to reflect all possible combinations of
various factors that affect emission rates and likelihood of current
control'' (59 FR 19416) and ``would provide consistency between the
HON[,] the recently issued [control techniques guidelines] for SOCMI
process vents. . .[and] the applicability criteria for the three SOCMI
process vents NSPS'' (59 FR 19418)).
By considering the TRE index value, an owner or operator
can allocate their resources more efficiently and concentrate efforts
and resources on the vents that have the greatest potential for
emission reduction, maximizing the overall environmental benefit. The
TRE considers not only the organic HAP emissions but also the
volumetric flow and net heating value of the vent gas stream, and thus
it takes into consideration the practicality of controlling relatively
small organic HAP emission streams using control devices like a flare
or a vapor incinerator.
Use of the TRE index value is a holistic approach that
ensures that the most significant emission sources are targeted for
control, leading to more effective pollution reduction.
Uncontrolled Group 2 process vent gas streams typically
exhibit minimal emissions of HAP and VOC, possess a low net heating
value, may contain steam or water vapor, and have varying volumetric
flow rates. Directing these streams to an emission control device, if
available in the CMPU capable of handling them, is a complex
engineering problem and would yield negligible emissions reductions.
Moreover, it would likely necessitate the addition of significant
amounts of supplemental fuel to combust this type of stream and
consequently result in additional emissions of carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and CO2 to control a
relatively small quantity of HAP or VOC emissions.
It is not clear how the emissions averaging program, as it
is currently applied under the HON, can continue to exist with the
requirement to control process vents that are currently designated as
Group 2 vents. The burden of over-control to generate ``credits'' will
effectively render the provisions unattainable or useless.
Many facilities will still be required to comply with TRE-
based determinations according to their title V operating permits and
requirements under NSPS subparts NNN and RRR.
Many of the commenters who opposed removing the TRE index value in
its entirety suggested that the EPA could potentially consider raising
the TRE index value threshold, such as by aligning it with the value in
the MON rule or the value indicated in Option 3 of the proposed rule,
or by setting it at a level agreed upon as cost-effective by the
industry. Other commenters opposed this suggestion.
Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' support for and
opposition to the removal of the TRE concept from the HON at 40 CFR
63.113(a)(4) and from the P&R I NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.485(l)(6), (o)(6),
(p)(5), and (x). We are finalizing the removal of the TRE concept as
proposed. We stand by the rationale we provided in the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) for removing the TRE
concept: (1) We identified at least one more recent (than the HON and
the P&R I NESHAP) chemical manufacturing NESHAP (i.e., ethylene
production) that does not use the TRE index value as criteria for
determining whether a process vent should be controlled; (2) based on
the responses to our CAA section 114 request, we observed that some
facilities are controlling continuous process vents that are not
required by the HON and the P&R I NESHAP to be controlled per the
results of the TRE index value calculation; (3) based on the responses
to our CAA section 114 request, we observed that facilities are routing
multiple continuous process vents to a single APCD; (4) determining a
TRE index value for certain process vent streams is often theoretical,
can be extremely complicated, and is uncertain; and (5) because the TRE
index value is largely a theoretical characterization tool, it can be
very difficult to enforce.
We disagree with commenters that the removal of the TRE concept
does not constitute a development in practices, processes, or
technologies under CAA section 112(d)(6). We noted in the preamble to
the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) that some owners and
operators do not use the TRE index value to determine whether a vent
stream is a Group 1 or Group 2 process vent. While we agree with
commenters that owners and operators control Group 2 vent streams for
reasons other than the desire to avoid the TRE calculation, the fact is
that owners and operators are controlling HON and P&R I Group 2 process
vents (possibly to comply with state or local regulations regarding
VOCs or to meet a BACT limit), which we consider a development under
CAA section 112(d)(6). Given that the TRE concept, as some commenters
pointed out, has been used since the original 1994 HON adoption (and
even in the 1992 proposed HON rule), we consider owners and operators
controlling HON and P&R I Group 2 process vents to be an operational
procedure that was not identified or considered during development of
the original MACT standards. Additionally, the removal of the TRE
concept simplifies the determination as to whether owners and operators
must control a vent stream and thus the applicability process is easier
to implement.
We disagree with commenters' assertion that the EPA did not provide
evidence that the TRE concept is largely theoretical and, as a result,
difficult to verify. As identified in the document titled Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous Process Vents
Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are Associated with Processes
Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end Process Vents
Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and Resins
NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group II
Polymers and Resins NESHAP (Docket Item ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0094), one facility that received the CAA section 114 request provided
over 300 pages of modeled runs used to determine certain
characteristics of their continuous process vents to be utilized as
part of the TRE index value calculations. Reviewing this information
revealed that in many cases the facility struggled to unify the modeled
runs with actual conditions at the facility and in some cases made
arbitrary decisions to allow the model to function. While we agree with
commenters that the TRE index
[[Page 42994]]
value can be derived from less theoretical methods, other responses to
the CAA section 114 request did not indicate how parameters used in the
TRE index value calculations were determined, and commenters did not
provide sufficient information to show which methods were most common
throughout industry. Given the theoretical nature of the TRE index
value, the EPA maintains that verifying TRE index values is arduous
because it can involve relying on significant process knowledge in
order to confirm HAP compositions of vent streams, vent stream
flowrates, vent stream net heating values, and hourly emissions. It may
also require verification of other facility assumptions (e.g.,
operational conditions and constraints) especially if modeling was
used.
We agree with commenters that the TRE index value has been an
integral part of many technology-based air standards since its initial
development. In fact, we said as much in the document titled Clean Air
Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous Process Vents
Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are Associated with Processes
Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end Process Vents
Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and Resins
NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group II
Polymers and Resins NESHAP (Docket Item ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0094). The TRE concept is almost 40 years old as it was first
introduced in a December 1984 EPA document (EPA-450/3-84-015; see
attachment to Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0094). However, even
if it has been integral, certain aspects of its underlying development
are clearly no longer applicable or appropriate. For example, the EPA
stated in the 1984 supporting materials (EPA-450/3-84-015) that the
Agency attempted to make the TRE index independent of inflation (e.g.,
the EPA assumed fixed relative costs of various resources, such as
carbon steel and electricity), yet it is impossible to ignore inflation
in the TRE calculations due to the time that has passed since it was
developed (e.g., costs of carbon steel and electricity have undoubtedly
increased since the development of the TRE index).
Although the TRE index value may allow owners and operators to
allocate resources efficiently and ensure that the most significant
emission sources are targeted for control, the current use of the TRE
index value is only based on controlling a single process vent with a
single APCD. This is an unrealistic scenario when compared to how
chemical manufacturing facilities actually control their process vents;
and it is much more likely that a facility routes numerous process
vents to the same APCD (and this is evident from observing the
responses to our CAA section 114 request).
We agree with commenters that the removal of the TRE concept may
lead to emissions increases due to the use of supplemental fuel in new
APCDs that are potentially needed to control Group 2 streams that are
currently uncontrolled; and we acknowledged this in our preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) as well as in the RIA
accompanying the proposal. However, based on other comments received
and discussed elsewhere in this section of this document (regarding the
use of low volumetric flow rates in our original proposed cost
estimate), we revised our cost analysis to account for higher flow
rates to the APCD. As a result of this flow rate adjustment, additional
supplemental fuel was needed to control Group 2 vent streams that
exhibit minimal emissions of HAP and VOC, possess a low net heating
value, and may contain steam or water vapor. Even so, at proposal, we
overestimated the amount of supplemental fuel that would be needed
nationwide (168 MMscf/yr) to control Group 2 vent streams that exhibit
minimal emissions of HAP and VOC, and we continue to believe this
estimate is conservatively high even after revising our cost analysis.
For this reason, we are not revising our estimate of secondary impacts
(including emissions of CO, CO2, NOX (including
nitrous oxide (N2O)), particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2)).
With regard to the commenters' assertion that many facilities will
still be required to comply with TRE-based determinations according to
their title V operating permits and requirements under NSPS subparts
NNN and RRR, we note that we are simplifying the HON overlap provisions
for NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR in the final rule (i.e., we are
finalizing, as proposed, that pursuant to 40 CFR 63.110(d)(1), (d)(4),
(d)(7), and (d)(10) process vents subject to the emission standards in
HON that are also subject to the NSPS subpart III, NNN, and/or RRR are
only required to comply with the HON). Also, facilities already have
general obligations under title V reopening for cause and 5-year
renewals to ensure that permits include all requirements applicable to
a facility.
Concerning emissions averaging, we note that the provisions
experienced no significant changes as a result of removing the TRE
concept. The only explicit references to the TRE concept as part of the
emissions averaging provisions are at 40 CFR 63.150(g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)
with respect to a vent transitioning from a Group 1 process vent to a
Group 2 process vent and at 40 CFR 63.150(m)(2)(i) related to
obligations associated with carbon absorbers, adsorbers, or condensers
not equipped with a control device. Both of these references are
captured as no longer being required at 40 CFR 63.113(a)(4)(xii) and 40
CFR 63.113(a)(4)(xiii), respectively, and do not affect applicability.
Emissions averaging has always been an optional provision with its
burden falling on owners or operators to decide if it was appropriate
or cost-effective to over-control certain streams while under-
controlling other streams. This does not change as a result of
redefining Group 2 process vents to be those streams containing less
than 1.0 lb/hr of HAP. In addition, we note that credits may be
generated from controlling Group 1 process vents at a higher nominal
efficiency than the reference technology and from utilizing pollution
prevention measures either independently or in combination with Group 1
process vents as specified at 40 CFR 63.150(c). Thus, even if a
facility determines that controlling Group 2 process vents is
infeasible, there are other avenues to pursuing the emission averaging
provisions.
Finally, we disagree with the commenters' suggestion to raise the
TRE index value threshold. Regarding a commenter's assertion that
removing the TRE concept is flawed given that no action was taken on
the TRE concept in the MON RTR, we note that we did not have data
related to Group 2 process vents while developing revisions to the MON.
Setting an emission threshold with no knowledge as to which Group 2 MON
vent streams would be impacted and without knowing the potential cost
or reductions associated with that revision would not have been
appropriate. Thus, we did not identify any cost-effective developments
in practices, processes, or control technologies for process vents.
However, as part of this rulemaking, the Group 2 process vent data was
collected via a CAA section 114 request. Our analysis of the Group 2
process vent data shows that removing the TRE concept and installing a
1.0 lb/hr of HAP emission threshold is of a similar cost effectiveness
to raising the TRE index value to 5.0. However, for the reasons stated
earlier in this document, removing the TRE concept was selected.
[[Page 42995]]
Given that we determined that a TRE index value of 5.0 was cost
effective but opted to remove the TRE concept instead, it would be
unreasonable to finalize a TRE index value of 3.0 based on the
considerations discussed above and the decreased potential impact.
Comment: Commenters said they opposed the EPA's proposed rule text
at 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 CFR 63.113(a)(1) and (2) that would remove the
50 ppmv and 0.005 scmm Group 1 process vent thresholds from the Group 1
process vent definition and that would instead require owners and
operators of process vents that emit greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr
of total organic HAP to either reduce emissions of organic HAP using a
flare meeting the proposed operating and monitoring requirements for
flares in NESHAP subpart F or reduce emissions of total organic HAP or
TOC by 98 percent by weight or to an exit concentration of 20 ppmv.
A commenter requested that the EPA explain how it arrived at a 1
lb/hr control threshold. The commenter said that while the simplicity
of a 1 lb/hr threshold is admittedly appealing, it is overly
simplistic, and because the EPA did not supply any justification for
the choice of 1 lb/hr, it appears to be an arbitrary and capricious
threshold value.
Another commenter requested that if the EPA decides to keep the
proposed Group 1 process vent definition with the 1.0 lb/hr total
organic HAP mass flow rate threshold, then these proposed revisions
should apply only to new sources in the HON. The commenter asserted
that facilities with new sources will have greater flexibility in
selecting cost-effective control options during the design and
construction phase than the very limited, and climate impacting,
options available to retrofit existing sources. The commenter added
that additional controls would have virtually no effect on improving
ample margin of safety or additional protection of public health.
Response: Commenters did not provide sufficient information
detailing why requiring the control of process vents that emit greater
than 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP would be infeasible beyond the
arguments related to the removal of the TRE concept which are addressed
in response to another comment in this section of this preamble.
Consequently, we are finalizing rule text, as proposed at 40 CFR 63.101
and 40 CFR 63.113(a)(1) and (2), that removes the 50 ppmv and 0.005
scmm Group 1 process vent thresholds from the Group 1 process vent
definition and instead requires owners and operators to control process
vents that emit greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic
HAP.
We disagree with the commenters' contention that the 1.0 lb/hr of
total organic HAP threshold is arbitrary and capricious. As stated in
the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), we
arrived at the 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP threshold using detailed
information for 50 Group 2 continuous process vents that was provided
by 9 of the 13 HON facilities (including 1 P&R I facility collocated
with a HON facility) that received the CAA section 114 request.
We started by performing an analysis of the 50 Group 2 continuous
process vents for a simple control scenario. Using vent stream
flowrates, vent stream net heating values, VOC and HAP emission rates
(which we obtained from TRE index value calculations that facilities
provided in their response to the CAA section 114 request), and the
methodology from the sixth edition of the EPA Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual; we calculated a cost for installing ductwork and a blower
on each vent, assuming each of these vents could be routed to an
existing control device achieving 98 percent by weight emission
reduction. Given that many of the Group 2 continuous process vents have
a very low flow rate and/or emission rate, we found that even
installing simple ductwork and a blower would not be cost-effective for
the majority of these vents. However, we did identify 23 of these Group
2 continuous process vents (a subset of the 50 Group 2 process vents
from responses to our CAA section 114 request) for which we found this
scenario to be cost-effective (i.e., $1,100 per ton of VOC/HAP or
less).
We then reviewed mass flow rates of total organic HAP within this
subset of Group 2 continuous process vents to develop two different
thresholds (i.e., 0.10 lb/hr and 1.0 lb/hr) for consideration. We
estimated that 48 HON facilities operating 287 HON Group 2 process
vents (96 of which are already voluntarily controlled and 191 that are
not currently controlled) and 3 P&R I facilities operating 30 P&R II
Group 2 continuous front-end process vents (in which all 30 are not
currently controlled) would be impacted if we implemented a 0.10 lb/hr
total organic HAP mass flow rate threshold. Conversely, only 16 HON
facilities operating 48 HON Group 2 process vents (32 of which are
already voluntarily controlled and 16 that are not currently
controlled) and 3 P&R I facilities operating 9 P&R I Group 2 continuous
front-end process vents (in which all 9 are not currently controlled)
would be impacted if we implemented a 1.0 lb/hr total organic HAP mass
flow rate threshold. We then estimated costs to control each Group 2
continuous process vent scenario and ultimately concluded that only
those streams with greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic
HAP would be cost-effective to control. The details of this analysis
are discussed in the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Continuous Process Vents Located in the SOCMI
Source Category that are Associated with Processes Subject to HON,
Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end Process Vents Associated with
Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and Process
Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group II Polymers and Resins
NESHAP (Docket Item ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0094).
We also disagree with the commenter that the 1.0 lb/hr of total
organic HAP threshold should apply only to new sources in the HON. In
response to another comment reflected elsewhere in this section of this
preamble, we have determined that the threshold is cost-effective for
existing sources.
Finally, with regard to comments suggesting that additional
controls would have virtually no effect on improving ample margin of
safety or additional protection of public health, we note that these
provisions are finalized under the authority of the technology review
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), which requires us to revise
standards as necessary and does not obligate us to consider health
impacts or generate an ample margin of safety.
Comment: Commenters suggested that the EPA significantly
underestimated the cost of installing an additional thermal oxidizer
and that therefore the cost effectiveness evaluation for removing the
TRE concept is not correct. Many of these commenters contended that the
fact that a control device has the capability to control multiple
process vents does not automatically imply that controlling all vents
together is cost-effective in every scenario; if the cumulative
emissions from the Group 2 process vents are relatively low, it would
not be economically viable to control all of them using a single
control device. A commenter said that although it is reasonable to
assume that a single new control device will be installed for
facilities that will be controlling existing Group 2 process vents with
emissions greater than 1.0 lb/hr, the use of 10 scfm for determining a
total capital investment (TCI) for the new control device is not
representative. The
[[Page 42996]]
commenter contended that although these vents are expected to have
lower volumetric flow rates than many existing Group 1 vents, there are
logistical and safety concerns that must be considered when designing a
closed vent system and thermal oxidizer that necessitate higher flow
rates. The commenter added that there are multiple facilities with more
than one of these types of vents per facility; thus, multiple vents
will need to be collected into a common system which will correspond to
a higher flow rate. The commenter said that a reasonable low-end
estimate for a new single thermal oxidizer for controlling these
process vents is closer to a $1,000,000 TCI. The commenter also noted
that capital costs could range from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000. The
commenter added that for facilities that produce chlorinated compounds,
this cost would be higher because any new thermal oxidizer will need to
be equipped with acid gas and dioxin/furan controls. Another commenter
agreed that facilities that produce chlorinated compounds would incur
higher costs but contended that additional controls for a facility's
Group 2 process vents would cost at least $50,000,000 in engineering
and design, equipment, and installation costs.
Another commenter said that for their facility, the addition of a
single control device, associated piping, instrumentation, engineering,
and installation to control 11 process vents (that are currently
considered Group 2 under the HON) will cost $55,000,000, or
approximately $925,000/ton of HAPs. Another commenter argued that
emission sources that are long distances away from existing control
devices (e.g., a tank in a remote tank farm) and streams not compatible
with a facility's existing control equipment are no more economically
feasible for additional controls now than when the HON was originally
promulgated.
Response: Several commenters provided us with their own capital
cost estimates for controlling Group 2 continuous process vents with
greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP, resulting in a
very wide range of capital costs (i.e., $1,000,000 to $55,000,000).
However, the commenters did not provide information to fully support
these capital costs. For example, commenters did not provide the number
of streams nor the flow rate for the new streams needing control, did
not provide any related emissions reductions from controlling these
streams, and did not provide the annual cost for their scenario. As
such, it was not possible to fully evaluate the commenters' provided
capital cost data.
However, we do agree with commenters that our proposed cost
estimate underestimated flow rates needed to route Group 2 continuous
process vents with greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic
HAP to APCDs. Although we still believe the use of the EPA's control
cost template to estimate the cost of installing a new recuperative
thermal oxidizer is appropriate (to control a Group 2 continuous
process vent with greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic
HAP), we revised our estimates to reflect the limitations of the
correlations associated with the EPA's control cost template which
starts with a flow rate of 500 scfm. With these corrections, we
estimate the average TCI to install a new recuperative thermal oxidizer
(for both the HON and the P&R I NESHAP) is about $167,000 (as opposed
to the $66,000 that we proposed); however, our estimate is still much
lower than the wide range of cost estimates provided by commenters. One
possible explanation for this difference in cost estimates is that
commenters may have used a much higher flow rate (e.g., 5,000 scfm as
opposed to 500 scfm) and a ``Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer'' in their
cost analysis instead of a ``Recuperative Thermal Oxidizer.'' Moreover,
commenters did not provide supporting information for their estimated
capital costs, so we do not have a way to corroborate this possible
explanation.
In light of the fact that commenters were generally concerned about
the cost estimate, we performed additional analyses to evaluate the
cost effectiveness of removing the TRE concept from the HON and the P&R
I NESHAP. Using a TCI of $1,000,000 as provided by the commenter, and
the EPA's control cost template (for installing a new recuperative
thermal oxidizer with 70 percent energy recovery), we estimated an
annual cost of approximately $330,000 (for the HON) and $318,000 (for
the P&R I NESHAP). Applying this annual cost to our estimated number of
HON facilities that would need to install a thermal oxidizer and to our
estimated HAP emissions reductions for the HON of 538 tpy, we
calculated a cost effectiveness of about $9,830 per ton, which we
consider to be cost-effective. Applying this annual cost to our
estimated number of P&R I facilities that would need to install a
thermal oxidizer and to our estimated HAP emissions reductions for the
P&R I NESHAP of 130 tpy, we calculated a cost effectiveness of about
$7,440 per ton. It is important to note that our analysis considers
that 16 HON facilities operating 48 HON Group 2 process vents (32 of
which are already controlled by an existing APCD and 16 that are not
currently controlled) and 3 P&R I facilities operating 9 P&R I Group 2
continuous front-end process vents (in which all 9 are not currently
controlled) would be impacted by the 1.0 lb/hr total organic HAP mass
flow rate threshold. We estimated these impacts using the Group 2
process vent data from responses to our CAA section 114 request. As
part of our reevaluation, we also revised our HAP emissions reduction
estimate for the HON and P&R I process vents that are not currently
controlled to reflect the average HAP emissions reductions from the
three HON Group 2 process vents and five P&R I Group 2 process vents
that would be impacted by the 1.0 lb/hr total organic HAP mass flow
rate threshold (based on data from responses to our CAA section 114
request). In our proposal, we took the lowest HAP emission reduction
based on a single HON process vent and did not appropriately account
for the other HON process vents for which we had data. We corrected a
similar issue for the P&R I NESHAP. Therefore, our final calculation
for estimating the cost effectiveness for removing the TRE concept in
its entirety from the HON includes a total HAP and VOC reduction of 538
tpy (and not 436 tpy as proposed) and for the P&R I NESHAP, a total HAP
and VOC reduction of 130 tpy (and not 51 tpy as proposed). It is also
possible that the actual emissions reductions may be higher than our
estimate because the higher capital costs provided by industry are
likely to be for thermal oxidizers that are sized to control higher
flow streams with more HAP emissions. For further details on how we
revised our estimates of cost and HAP emissions reductions, see the
document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Continuous Process Vents Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are
Associated with Processes Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and
Batch Front-end Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to
Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with
Processes Subject to Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAP--FINAL, which
is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Absent additional detailed information from commenters, we are
finalizing the removal of the TRE concept as proposed and are requiring
control for process vents that emit greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr
of total organic HAP. We also believe this is
[[Page 42997]]
reasonable given that a 1.0 lb/hr total organic HAP mass flow rate
threshold for continuous HON and P&R I process vents aligns more
closely with the batch process vent control threshold in the MON and
the NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources. In each of these
NESHAP, the applicability threshold of 10,000 lb/yr per process is used
for batch process vents.
Comment: Commenters observed that the EPA's favorable cost-
effectiveness outcome is based on emissions reductions that have
already occurred and that will not occur as a result of the proposed
standards (and thus should not be used in the calculus). The commenters
remarked that the EPA's final calculation for estimating the cost
effectiveness for removing the TRE concept in its entirety included a
total annual cost of $3,150,000 and a HAP and VOC reduction of 436 tpy.
The commenters pointed out that process vents that are already
voluntarily controlled account for 366 tpy of the total reduction even
though they will not have emissions reductions as a result of
implementing the new proposed definition of a Group 1 process vent. The
commenters argued that if the EPA determines that the emissions
reductions from these vents should be included in the analysis, the
Agency must account for the entire cost associated with controlling
these emissions (i.e., annual costs associated with operating a thermal
oxidizer) rather than only the costs associated with the installation
and operation of ductwork and blowers. The commenters added that if
there are no emissions reductions expected from process vents that are
already voluntarily controlled, then the cost effectiveness analysis
should be revised such that it does not include reductions from these
vents.
Response: The EPA maintains that the emission reductions associated
with removing the TRE concept and redefining Group 1 process vents to
include process vents emitting greater than 1.0 lb/hr of HAP are
reasonable, and the EPA is not making any revisions as a result of this
comment. Commenters are correct in stating that 366 tpy of HAP emitted
by HON process vents exceeding 1.0 lb/hr of HAP are already voluntarily
controlled. However, the emission reductions are presented on a basis
of allowable emissions. Previously, there were no requirements for
process vents exceeding 1.0 lb/hr of HAP. Therefore, under the previous
rulemaking, all emissions from these vents were allowable, regardless
of whether some facilities were voluntarily controlling these emissions
or not. By setting the emission threshold of 1.0 lb/hr of HAP, the
allowable emissions are restricted, resulting in the 366 tpy of
emission reductions that the EPA utilized to determine the cost
effectiveness of removing the TRE concept and redefining Group 1
process vents. We note that we updated our total HAP reductions and
annual cost estimates in response to a comment reflected elsewhere in
this section of this preamble. For details on how we revised our
estimate of cost and HAP emissions reductions, see the document titled
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous
Process Vents Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are Associated
with Processes Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end
Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and
Resins NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to
Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAP--FINAL, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
We also disagree with commenters that annual operating costs should
be considered for the control devices that are controlling the
voluntarily controlled streams. These existing control devices are
controlling other streams that are regulated (e.g., controlling HON
Group 1 process vents), thus the control devices would continue
operating regardless of whether the Group 2 streams are sent to them or
not.
Comment: Commenters requested that the EPA add EPA Method 320 to 40
CFR 63.115(g)(2) and (3) and allow companies to use measurements or
testing conducted within the last 5 years to initially demonstrate that
a process vent is a Group 2 process vent under 40 CFR 63.115(g)
provided that: (1) The prior measurement or test was conducted using
the same methods specified in 40 CFR 63.115(g), and (2) either no
process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator
can demonstrate that the results of the measurement or test, with or
without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR
63.115(a) despite process changes.
A commenter also requested that the EPA allow companies to use
engineering calculations or process knowledge to initially demonstrate
that a process vent is a Group 2 process vent under 40 CFR 63.115(g).
The commenter pointed out that they already conducted testing and
sampling procedures on their emission points corresponding to the EPA's
CAA section 114 request which cost $20,000 to $30,000 for a single
process vent. The commenter added that testing every vent stream is not
necessary where an owner or operator has engineering calculations or
process knowledge to demonstrate that a vent stream is a Group 2
process vent; and historically, under the group determination
procedures for process vents, the owner or operator of a Group 2
process vent with a TRE index value greater than 4.0 could use
measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations to determine
the TRE index value of the vent stream. The commenter also said that
one of their facilities continuously monitors vent flow and HAP
concentration from two HON process vents when they are routed to
atmosphere and uses the calculated TRE index value to demonstrate that
the vents remain Group 2 on an ongoing basis. The commenter said that
this alternative monitoring approach was requested and approved due to
the variability of HAP emissions from those vents; and generally, the
calculated TRE index value remains well above 5.0. The commenter
claimed that this alternative monitoring is used when the site thermal
oxidizer is down for preventive maintenance; and meeting the proposed
new process vent requirements would require either a significant
investment in new control equipment or shutdown of the process during
thermal oxidizer maintenance.
Response: We are revising the final rule based on the commenter's
request to add EPA Method 320 to 40 CFR 63.115(g)(2) and (3) and allow
for certain previously conducted performance tests to be exempt from
the Group 2 demonstration requirements at 40 CFR 63.115(g) provided the
owner or operator can demonstrate: (1) No changes have been made to the
process since the time of the previously conducted measurement or
emission test; (2) the previously conducted measurement or emission
test was conducted using the same methods specified in 40 CFR
63.115(g); and (3) the previously conducted measurement or emission
test was completed within the last 60 months. However, we disagree with
the commenters' request to allow companies to use engineering
calculations or process knowledge to initially demonstrate that a
process vent is a Group 2 process vent under 40 CFR 63.115(g). As with
our concerns relative to the TRE index value, the ability to use
assessments leads to greater uncertainty with regard to
characterization of vent streams and their emission potential. We note
that as explained in section IV.C.3.e of this preamble, we are
finalizing language in the ``C'' and ``Q'' terms of the equations
[[Page 42998]]
at 40 CFR 63.115(g)(3)(ii) and (g)(4)(iv) allowing the use of
engineering calculations to determine concentration or flow rate only
in situations where measurements cannot be taken with EPA reference
methods.
ii. Fenceline Monitoring
Comment: Numerous commenters supported the EPA's proposal to
require fenceline monitoring at facilities in the SOCMI and P&R I
source categories that use, produce, store, or emit benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, chloroprene, EtO, ethylene dichloride, or vinyl chloride.
These commenters also said they support the requirement to conduct root
cause analysis and corrective action. In addition, some commenters
voiced their support for requiring monitoring data to be made available
to the public in the WebFIRE database, allowing communities to have
access to information that impacts them. Some commenters said the
fenceline monitoring technology has proven to be a valuable tool for
petroleum refineries to timely detect problems and to address them more
quickly, substantially reducing emissions from leaks and other
fugitives. At least one commenter said fenceline monitoring can provide
numerous benefits, including assisting in identifying an accidental
release, and in the event of an accidental release, give the community
immediate notice of the emergency and any necessary mitigation
responses they should employ (shelter in place, close windows,
evacuate, etc.). This commenter added that fenceline monitoring can
also: help communities advocate for vigorous enforcement of regulatory
requirements; push companies to use safer chemicals; alert and educate
friends, family members, and community members; and encourage the media
to report on polluting facilities in their areas. The commenter also
suggested that facilities can use fenceline monitoring data to take the
initiative to improve safety at their operations. Other commenters
requested that EtO emissions be required to be monitored by third-party
companies. The commenters explained that current laws in some states
allow facilities to monitor their own emissions, which could cause
underreported emissions.
A commenter argued that fenceline monitoring requirements are
crucial in protecting the communities referred to by the commenter as
Cancer Alley, especially in St. John the Baptist Parish, which the
commenter claimed has the highest cancer rates in the country. The
commenter stated that more and more residents are either facing a
cancer diagnosis or know someone, such as an immediate family,
diagnosed with cancer; and asthma rates and hospitalizations from
asthma are ever-increasing, especially amongst children. The commenter
also said the area is facing increased weather events brought about by
climate change. Citing an analysis by the Times Picayune and Advocate
newspapers, the commenter said that 740 toxic sites are at risk from
storms, with most of those plants concentrated in the area the
commenters refer to as Cancer Alley. The commenter said that after
experiencing numerous storms, they personally witnessed the flaring of
surrounding plants, including the plants that produce EtO, and are
concerned about the increase of pollution before, during, and after
weather events.
On the contrary, other commenters opposed the EPA's proposal to
require fenceline monitoring at facilities in the SOCMI and P&R I
source categories that use, produce, store, or emit benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, chloroprene, EtO, ethylene dichloride, or vinyl chloride.
These commenters primarily argued that the EPA exceeded its authority
under CAA section 112(d)(6) because fenceline monitoring is not a
``development[] in practices, processes, and control technologies'' for
fugitive EtO emissions. Commenters in opposition of fenceline
monitoring made the following points about the EPA's assertion of
authority to require fenceline monitoring:
Fenceline monitoring has been in existence for years, but
as recently as 2020 the EPA concluded (in the MON in response to
Comment 40 in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing, see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746-0200)
that they were ``not aware of any methodology or technology with the
necessary accuracy, precision, and detection sensitivity to require
fenceline monitoring for EtO.''
It is unclear what standard the EPA is reviewing or how
fenceline monitoring constitutes a review of the existing standards
with respect to ``developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies.''
The EPA does not explain how fenceline monitoring, which
by itself does not reduce emissions, is a development.
The EPA does not provide any analysis as to how ``root
cause analysis and corrective action'' are developments with respect to
any particular unit/unit type.
The EPA does not adequately explain how monitoring methods
are a development nor does the EPA explain what development category
fenceline monitoring allegedly falls into (i.e., a work practice
standard that was not considered previously).
According to the proposed rule, at least in places,
fenceline monitoring (coupled with root cause analysis and corrective
action) is a work practice standard ``that is a development in
practices considered under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the purposes of
managing fugitive emissions''; however, the EPA considered two
monitoring methods--not action levels, root cause analysis, or
corrective action--as developments in practices, and it is unclear how
monitoring methods fall under any other of the broad categories of
developments previously defined by the EPA.
If the root cause analysis and the corrective action
requirements are the work practice standards--as the EPA stated in the
proposed NESHAP for EtO commercial sterilization and fumigation
operations--then how are monitoring methods a work practice standard?
(And if they are not, they are not a development that can be considered
under CAA section 112(d)(6)?).
Adding data quality requirements and existing best
practices does not render EPA Method 327 a new development, nor does it
remedy the concerns about facilities' ability to accurately measure
fenceline EtO concentrations (i.e., there are still no reliable methods
that can measure to the level of precision required).
Coupling fenceline monitoring with a canister monitoring
network and a so-called ``new'' reference method does not transform the
fenceline monitoring as proposed into a new technology that is within
the CAA section 112(d)(6) authority.
Some of these commenters contended that even if the proposed
fenceline monitoring requirements were within the scope of CAA section
112(d)(6) authority, the EPA failed to adequately consider/quantify a
level of emission reduction from the proposed fenceline monitoring and
did not account for any of the potential costs associated with
achieving such emission reductions (i.e., the EPA only considered the
costs of the actual monitoring and not the root cause and corrective
action requirements). A commenter asserted that had the EPA
appropriately accounted for costs, it would have concluded that the
proposed fenceline monitoring requirements are not cost-effective,
consistent with the Agency's determination for the options
[[Page 42999]]
considered for equipment leaks, PRDs, and storage vessel breathing
losses. The commenter argued that the EPA failed to quantify the
additional HAP emissions reductions for EtO and chloroprene that the
Agency indicates will be required for compliance or to consider the
cost of these additional reductions (in addition to the cost of the
required root cause and corrective action analyses) as is required to
meet the Agency's obligation under CAA section 112(d)(2). The commenter
stated that the EPA has not assigned emissions reductions of benzene,
1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, or vinyl chloride as a result of
implementing the proposed fenceline monitoring work practice
requirements; and with the exception of EtO and chloroprene, the Agency
implies that additional reductions beyond those the EPA proposed
elsewhere in the rulemaking will be unnecessary to meet the fenceline
action levels. The commenter attested that the EPA proposed additional
requirements on top of those already required by the existing rules, or
that will be required as part of the other proposed revisions (e.g.,
the proposed flare standards, the existing and proposed monitoring
requirements for process vents, and equipment leaks and PRDs), without
identifying deficiencies in the current and proposed requirements.
Similarly, other commenters stated that the EPA has not demonstrated
that fenceline monitoring is necessary to reduce HAP emissions or to
provide an ample margin of safety; and the lack of emissions reductions
associated with the proposed requirements shows that such requirements
are unnecessary to the ultimate goals of CAA section 112.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertion that the
proposed fenceline monitoring work practice standard is not authorized
under CAA section 112(d)(6), but we are making certain changes to the
fenceline monitoring program in the final rule in response to comments,
including adopting a second action level for just chloroprene under CAA
section 112(f)(2). Contrary to the commenter's claims, we specifically
proposed the fenceline monitoring standard under CAA section 112(d)(6)
to be a work practice standard that is applied broadly to target
fugitive emissions sources located at HON and P&R I facilities. The
proposed standard does more than impose monitoring as some commenters
suggested; it also limits emissions from sources because it requires
the owner or operator to identify and reduce HAP emissions through a
monitoring and repair program, as do many work practice standards
authorized under CAA sections 112(h) and (d). We note that the sources
addressed by the fenceline monitoring standard--fugitive emissions
sources such as wastewater collection and treatment operations,
equipment leaks, heat exchange systems and storage vessels--are already
subject to work practice standards. Our review of these requirements
indicates that this fenceline monitoring work practice standard would
be a further improvement in the way fugitive emissions are managed and
would, by providing such further assurance of compliance with emission
standards and work practice standards, also provide an extra measure of
protection for surrounding communities. Consistent with the criteria in
CAA section 112(h)(2), we determined and established that work practice
standards are appropriate for fugitive emissions at the time we
established the initial MACT standards. Today, we reaffirm that it is
impracticable to directly measure all fugitive emission sources at a
given source but do not consider it necessary to reiterate these
findings as part of this action to add the fenceline monitoring
provisions for these sources under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2).
We note that the commenters do not provide any grounds to support a
reevaluation as to whether these fugitive emission sources are
appropriately regulated by a work practice standard.
The EPA, in establishing action levels for the fenceline monitoring
work practice standard, relied on the authority provided in CAA section
112(d)(6) to set action levels at the highest concentration
anticipated, considering the emission reductions anticipated under the
additional standards we are adopting under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and
112(f)(2). Again, the section 112(d)(6)-based action levels function to
verify the expected emissions reductions resulting from compliance with
the final emission standards, and reflect concentration levels that are
largely already resulting from sources subject to the rules and are
therefore cost-effective. Further, in the proposal the EPA acknowledged
that the proposed action levels for EtO and chloroprene of 0.2 ug/
m3 and 0.3 ug/m3, respectively, were lower than
the fenceline modeled concentrations for EtO and chloroprene from
facilities in the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source categories after
implementation of the proposed emission standards, and we took comment
on whether we should require these lower action levels under CAA
section 112(f)(2). In this final rule, we believe it is reasonable,
given the unique circumstances presented by these source categories, to
require these lower action levels. First, for EtO, the lower action
level reflects concentrations that all HON-subject facilities, except
for one, are currently meeting and are therefore cost-effective under
CAA section 112(d)(6). Second, consistent with the second step of the
risk review under the Benzene NESHAP approach addressing whole-facility
risks, for chloroprene the lower action level reflects concentrations
what will result in whole facility risks from this HAP dropping to 100-
in-1 million. Further whole-facility reductions in EtO and chloroprene
emissions from other sources located at major source facilities subject
to these standards, including sources outside the source category, will
help reduce risks from the whole-facility emissions of EtO and
chloroprene from facilities with sources in the SOCMI and Neoprene
Production source categories.
To reduce risk in the final rule we are making an adjustment from
what was proposed. First, we are establishing under CAA section
112(d)(6), for all six of the monitored pollutants, action levels that
correspond to the fenceline concentrations expected to result from
compliance with the final rule's standards and work practices
applicable to HON and P&R I processes and which reflect concentrations
that HON and P&R I sources are largely already achieving, such that
these action levels function to provide further assurance of such
compliance of the emission standards and provide for corrective action
when action levels are exceeded. For benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene
dichloride, EtO and vinyl chloride, these are the same action levels as
proposed. For chloroprene, instead, the action level has been adjusted
upward to 0.8 ug/m3 (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0730-0091, page 24) to reflect the modeled expected fenceline
concentration resulting from the other final standards and work
practices chloroprene. This first action level is, therefore,
consistent with how we established fenceline monitoring requirements
under CAA section 112(d)(6) in the petroleum refineries NESHAP and how
we represent the primary CAA section 112(d)(6)-based fenceline
monitoring program under the final rule.
Although the EtO action level of 0.2 ug/m3 is lower than
what the EPA's modeling shows will result from compliance with the
final CAA section 112(d) and 112(f) SOCMI source category emission
standards in the final HON, as we discussed in the proposed rule, we
expect that major sources with
[[Page 43000]]
HON processes will be able to employ additional facility-wide measures,
including those at other EtO-emitting processes outside of the SOCMI
source category, to obtain additional cost-effective EtO reductions via
improvements in maintenance and operations and enable compliance with
the CAA section 112(d)(6) EtO action level. This is already being
demonstrated by the fact that all HON-subject facilities, except for
one, are already showing concentrations at or below the final action
level. Moreover, this is reasonable due to the integrated nature of
chemical plant operations, where multiple process units may be subject
to NESHAP for more than one source category and products of units in
some categories may also be feedstocks for units in other source
categories. Accordingly, the source category designations, while part
of the NESHAP program, are somewhat of an artificial distinction in
these highly integrated chemical manufacturing facilities. For example,
there are emission sources that often serve the entire facility, such
as wastewater treatment systems and heat exchange systems, but they are
typically assigned to a single source category or subcategory. Because
of the propensity for large integrated chemical plants to contain
numerous source categories, and also to contain units that span
multiple source categories, we are finalizing fenceline work practice
standards with an EtO action level that relies on achieving reductions
across the whole HON facility, even if that includes non-HON EtO-
emitting processes.
Second, in light of the very high risk presented by chloroprene
emissions, we have concluded it is appropriate, in addition to adopting
the primary CAA section 112(d)(6)-based action levels and monitoring
program for all six subject HAP, to supplement the program with a
secondary action level for this pollutant. This secondary action level,
equivalent to that proposed, reflects fenceline concentrations for this
pollutant that increase the margin of safety and advances the
objectives of CAA section 112(f)(2). Although our modeling indicates
that compliance with the other emission standards and work practices
promulgated for Neoprene Production sources may not produce this
secondary level, we anticipate--as explained in the proposal--that
major sources will be able to employ additional facility-wide measures,
such as maintenance measures, to achieve further chloroprene reductions
to reach this secondary, CAA section 112(f)-based action level.
In the case of chloroprene emitted by the Denka Performance
Elastomer, LLC facility (subject to both the P&R I NESHAP and the HON),
we do not anticipate taking further source-category-wide rulemaking
action that could re-set CAA section 112(d)(6)-based lower action
levels to reflect future additional chloroprene reductions from
additional source category processes. Consequently, for Denka
Performance Elastomer, LLC's chloroprene emissions, this rulemaking is
the final opportunity for us to establish an action level with the goal
of assuring that whole-facility chloroprene emissions are reduced to a
level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.\50\ This is consistent with the statute because under the CAA
section 112(f)(2) ample margin of safety second step, the Benzene
NESHAP approach that is incorporated into the CAA allows the EPA to
consider quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due to co-
location of facilities, and co-emission of pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See footnote 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree that the fenceline monitoring standards we are
finalizing in this rule are redundant with MACT emissions standards for
fugitive HAP emissions sources. The MACT standards impose requirements
on fugitive HAP emissions sources consistent with the requirements in
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), and the fenceline monitoring requirement
is not a replacement for those requirements. Rather, based on our
review of these standards, we concluded that the primary CAA section
112(d)(6)-based fenceline monitoring program is a development in
practices, processes or control technologies that is a necessary
revision to the previous standard, as it would improve management of
fugitive emissions in a cost-effective manner and help assure
compliance with applicable process emission standards under the HON and
the P&R I NESHAP. Requiring sources to establish a fenceline monitoring
program that identifies HAP emission sources that cause elevated
pollutant concentrations at the fenceline, and correcting high
emissions through a more focused effort, augments but does not replace
the existing requirements. We found that, through early identification
of significant fugitive HAP releases through fenceline monitoring,
compliance with the Refinery MACT fenceline work practice standard for
these similar emissions sources in these source categories has resulted
in a significant reduction in benzene emissions. The action levels for
the primary fenceline work practice standard, by contrast, are not
based on the best performers but rather on the highest value expected
on the fenceline from any source, based largely on the modeling of
emission inventories expected to result from compliance with the final
emission standards and work practices under the rules.
Lastly, we acknowledge commenters' support for fenceline
monitoring. However, with respect to the commenter requesting that a
third party be required to monitor the fenceline concentrations, the
EPA disagrees. Fenceline monitoring requires a level of access to the
facility and measurement devices that would be burdensome to
accommodate for facilities. Fenceline monitoring is intended to address
concerns with underreported emission inventories and works based on
timely root cause analysis. Adding a third-party requirement would slow
a facility's ability to respond to fugitive emissions in a timely
manner.
Comment: A commenter argued that fenceline monitoring is not an
emissions standard or work practice within the meaning of CAA section
112. Citing CAA section 302(k), the commenter said that, by itself,
fenceline monitoring does not reduce emissions, rather all that
fenceline monitoring does is identify ambient concentrations of a
specific chemical; it does not even identify whether the chemical is
from a regulated source, let alone identify a specific regulated unit
at such source. The commenter said that fenceline monitoring can only
potentially reduce emissions when coupled with additional requirements,
but, at least in this instance, the EPA does not appear to claim
associated reductions from the source category. The commenter added
that while the EPA is proposing ``action levels,'' again, these levels
alone do not ``limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions.'' The commenter said that according to the preamble, if the
emissions inventories are accurate, ``all facilities should be able to
meet the fenceline concentration action levels considering the controls
[EPA is] proposing''; therefore, even when coupled with action levels,
the EPA's proposal does not claim that fenceline monitoring will result
in any meaningful emissions reductions from the source category. The
commenter also stated that while exceedance of an action level may
trigger further requirements, the action level does not, by itself or
combined with fenceline monitoring, limit emissions--additional actions
are required; and, because the
[[Page 43001]]
EPA's proposal measures ambient concentrations, an exceedance of a
proposed action level is not necessarily the result of emissions from
the facility in question or from an exceedance of a standard.
The commenter noted that while the EPA states that it is proposing
fenceline monitoring as a work practice standard, which could fall
within the meaning of ``any design, equipment, work practice or
operational standard promulgated under [the CAA],'' the EPA does not
explain how fenceline monitoring meets the requirements for a work
practice standard. The commenter added that work practice standards are
authorized only in limited circumstances under CAA section 112(h)(1)
when it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard
for control of HAPs, and the EPA has not adequately explained what
elements of the proposal are work practice standards.
Response: Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review
and revise the MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account
developments in ``practices, processes and control technologies.''
Consistent with our long standing practice for the technology review of
MACT standards, in section II.G.1 of the proposal preamble, we list
five types of ``developments'' we consider.
Fenceline monitoring fits squarely within two of those five types
of developments (emphasis added):
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards.
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards.
As used here, ``other equipment'' is clearly separate from and in
addition to ``add-on control'' technology and is broad enough to
include monitoring equipment. In this case, fenceline monitoring
includes equipment that we did not identify and consider during
development of the original MACT standards. Additionally, the primary
fenceline standard is a work practice standard, involving monitoring,
root cause analysis, and corrective action not identified at the time
of the original MACT standards. Therefore, the primary fenceline
requirements are a development in practices that will improve how
facilities manage fugitive emissions, and the EPA appropriately relied
on CAA section 112(d)(6) in requiring this standard. (Note: The EPA is
not relying on CAA section 112(f)(2) as the basis for the primary
fenceline monitoring work practice standard established under section
112(d)(6) for benzene, butadiene, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride,
chloroprene, and EtO, and has set action levels according to the annual
average concentrations modeled at the facility fenceline for any
facility after compliance with process unit emission standards
applicable to HON and P&R I sources and that reflect levels sources are
largely already achieving. However, as discussed elsewhere in this
section of the preamble, we are also setting a secondary action level
of 0.3 ug/m\3\ for chloroprene under CAA section 112(f)(2), because
this standard will further reduce risks from the whole-facilities
consistent with the goal to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health).
Comment: A commenter argued that the EPA's explanation for the
basis of selecting the six compounds for fenceline monitoring is
inadequate when compared against the rulemaking record. The commenter
said that the EPA appears to base its selection of compounds on
previous and current risk drivers because the EPA indicates that
``[s]everal of these compounds were identified as cancer risk drivers
in the prior risk and technology reviews for the HON and P&R I NESHAP
conducted in 2006 (HON) and 2008 and 2011 (P&R I). . ..'' The commenter
contended that, with the exception of EtO, the maximum risk previously
found by the EPA in its reviews for the HON and P&R I NESHAP were well
below 100-in-1 million (or not identified as a risk driver at all); the
commenter provided a table showing the EPA's determinations of 2006
HON, 2008 P&R I and 2011 P&R I MIR for benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
chloroprene, EtO, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride. The
commenter pointed out that in each of these previous assessments, the
EPA found risks acceptable and did not adopt additional standards to
address residual risk or to ensure an ample margin of safety. The
commenter said the EPA also did not identify benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
ethylene dichloride, or vinyl chloride as driving unacceptable risk
under the current assessment; thus, while the EPA's selection of
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride based
on risk is questionable under the EPA's framing of the option as part
of its CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review, a closer inspection of
the EPA's previous risk assessments indicates that in fact, these
compounds did not drive any unacceptable risk. The commenter stated
that the EPA's proposal to require millions of dollars of monitoring
for no emissions reductions is unjustified under CAA section 112(d)(6)
and unnecessary under CAA section 112(f). The commenter added that they
acknowledge that the EPA found EtO and chloroprene to be risk drivers
as part of their voluntary assessment supporting this proposed
rulemaking and are claiming unquantified emissions reductions as a
result of implementing fenceline monitoring; however, according to the
commenter, the Agency determined that these additional reductions are
unnecessary under CAA section 112(f) when it proposed to find
acceptable risk and an ample margin of safety after implementation of
the controls detailed in section III.B.2.a of the proposal preamble (88
FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
The commenter argued that it would be inappropriate to consider
fenceline monitoring in context of the CAA section 112(f) review. The
commenter stated that the EPA has already concluded that the controls
that it has proposed to impose protect human health and the environment
with an ample margin of safety. The commenter added that the EPA has
not identified any additional emission reductions from the source
category that would be necessary to reduce risk from the source
category and that the EPA has failed to demonstrate that any such
controls are cost-effective, which would be included as any ample of
safety analysis. The commenter also said that the action level is not
tied in a meaningful way to reducing risk to an acceptable level.
Response: The EPA implemented a fenceline monitoring standard to
address emissions of pollutants that it determined could cause
unacceptable risk, based on risk modeling of emission inventories and
accounting for the range of uncertainty associated with these
estimates. When the EPA promulgated the Refinery MACT fenceline work
practice standard, the EPA acknowledged that emissions of benzene and
indeed, of all other HAP in the source category, did not pose
unacceptable risk when emissions from refineries were modeled, but that
the work practice standard was put in place to address the uncertainty
associated with emission estimates from fugitive sources and to
preserve the decisions regarding the findings of acceptable risk and
ample margin of safety (79 FR 36290, June 30, 2014). The same
uncertainty exists here for the SOCMI and P&R I source categories. As
explained in the April 25, 2023 proposal, we collected fenceline
measurements in addition to modeling inventories, and our fenceline
measurements indicate that
[[Page 43002]]
concentrations at the fenceline almost always exceed modeled
concentrations, indicating the potential for significant uncertainty
with regard to our risk analysis and findings of acceptable risk. As
discussed earlier in this document, the EPA is not relying on CAA
section 112(f)(2) as the basis for the primary fenceline monitoring
work practice standard established under CAA section 112(d)(6) for
benzene, butadiene, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, chloroprene,
and EtO and has set action levels according to the annual average
concentrations modeled at the facility fenceline for any facility after
compliance with process unit emission standards applicable to HON and
P&R I sources and that are reflective of concentrations subject sources
are already achieving. Further, we disagree with the commenters who
suggest that the EPA may not require fenceline monitoring pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) because the EPA has not determined that fenceline
monitoring is necessary to ensure an acceptable level of risk or to
provide an ample margin of safety. CAA section 112(d)(6) does not
require the EPA to factor in the health considerations provided in CAA
section 112(f)(2) when making a determination whether it is
``necessary'' to revise the previous emission standard.
For chloroprene, we are finalizing in the primary CAA section
112(d)(6)-based program the action level of 0.8 ug/m\3\ that reflects
compliance with the source category-specific emissions limits for the
Neoprene Production source category in the P&R I NESHAP. Separately, we
are also setting a secondary action level of 0.3 ug/m\3\ for
chloroprene under CAA section 112(f)(2), because this standard further
reduces from the whole-facility risk from sources emitting chloroprene
to levels that are consistent with the goals of CAA section 112(f)(2).
As discussed earlier, in the proposal, we acknowledged that the
proposed action level of 0.3 ug/m\3\ for chloroprene is lower than the
fenceline modeled concentrations from facilities in the Neoprene
Production source category after implementation of our proposed
standards under CAA section 112(f)(2); however, considering whole-
facility risks, and in light of the configuration of the emission
sources subject to these rules that contribute to whole-facility risk
that remain for the impacted communities after the imposition of
controls, we are setting the additional second action level for
chloroprene at facility boundaries as low as possible (considering
method detection limitations) to ensure that the emission reductions
anticipated from implementation of controls used to meet the proposed
standards and to achieve additional chloroprene emission reductions are
achievable. Reductions to achieve this action level will likely come
from controlling additional emission sources at the one Neoprene
Production facility that might not be considered part of the source
category. Controlling these sources reduces emissions from the entire
facility, not just the source category, and makes it possible for
operators to achieve the lower action level. Thus, in this final rule,
and based on the unique circumstances presented here, we consider
facility-wide risk as an additional factor we may consider under CAA
section 112(f)(2) and, in addition to the primary CAA section
112(d)(6)-based fenceline monitoring program addressing all six subject
HAP, we are promulgating a separate and secondary lower action levels
for just chloroprene under CAA section 112(f)(2).
Comment: Many commenters requested that the EPA expand the
fenceline monitoring requirements to every facility in the SOCMI, P&R
I, and P&R II source categories so owners and operators of these
facilities can demonstrate, by representative monitoring data, that
pollution from these facilities poses minimal levels of harm to
fenceline communities. Some of these commenters pointed out that, as
proposed, only about 60 percent of the facilities in these source
categories would have to conduct fenceline monitoring. Other commenters
contended that, as proposed, 90 facilities would have no fenceline
monitoring requirements. A commenter contended that there is no reason
or need for the EPA to have selected just six toxic pollutants and used
them as basis to omit facilities from fenceline monitoring, given that
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires making any changes that are
``necessary'' to bring standards into full compliance with the CAA,
such as setting limits on uncontrolled and inadequately controlled
emissions. The commenter pointed out that the EPA set fenceline
monitoring requirements that applied to all refineries subject to
NESHAP subpart CC and did not omit sources based on the selected
constituents to be monitored.
Some commenters suggested that the EPA could add more toxic
pollutants to its current list of six fenceline monitoring
constituents, in order to ensure that each facility has at least one or
more sentinel chemicals that can be monitored. A commenter recommended
that the EPA include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX), methanol, and formaldehyde constituents to the list of
pollutants requiring fenceline monitoring. The commenter pointed out
that based on TRI data, the inclusion of formaldehyde to the list of
pollutants requiring fenceline monitoring would add another 28
facilities, the inclusion of methanol would add another 13 facilities,
and the inclusion of BTEX/n-hexane would add another 3 facilities. The
commenter also pointed out that it is no surprise that information
gathered from only HON and P&R I sources resulted in constituents most
representative of those sources and not representative of P&R II
sources; and had the EPA included P&R II data in the information it
gathered for the purpose of fenceline monitoring constituents, the EPA
would have found that all five P&R II sources emit epichlorohydrin and
that several of them emit the non-benzene BTEX constituents. Commenters
requested that the EPA add formaldehyde to the list of pollutants
requiring fenceline monitoring because the IRIS data indicates that as
a carcinogen, formaldehyde is even more potent than benzene. A
commenter said evidence from emission reports suggests that some
facilities may be underreporting or only sporadically reporting
formaldehyde emissions (e.g., the Conoco-Phillips/Shell Wood River
manufacturing site in Illinois reported very large formaldehyde
emissions to the NEI in 2017 and even larger amounts to the 2020 NEI
but has not disclosed formaldehyde emissions in any of the TRI reports
for the facility for the 5 years between 2017 and 2020). A commenter
recommended that the EPA require each facility to select the
constituents to be monitored via tailored fenceline monitoring plans
that are specific to each facility's emissions and risk drivers.
Additionally, at least one commenter said they hope that EPA will
replicate this multi-pollutant monitoring in other rules, including as
a supplement to the ethylene production rules.
On the contrary, some commenters argued that the proposed fenceline
monitoring requirements would impermissibly regulate emissions from
non-HON sources. Citing the proposal at 88 FR 25145-46, some of these
commenters pointed out that the EPA expressly notes that facilities are
not permitted to exclude non-HON sources of the target pollutants that
are within facility property boundaries when determining whether
monitored concentrations exceed action levels. The commenters said that
regulating emissions from sources outside of the
[[Page 43003]]
source category is incompatible with the EPA's statutory mandate to
``review and revise'' the ``emissions standards promulgated under this
section,'' which refers to the source-category MACT standards
promulgated under CAA section 112(d). The commenters stated that the
EPA may only regulate HON sources under its technology review authority
in accordance with the statutory language and structure of the CAA. The
commenters reiterated that when enacting CAA section 112, Congress
instructed the EPA to promulgate a list of specific source categories
and that Congress then instructed the EPA to establish emission
standards ``[f]or the categories and subcategories the Administrator
lists under subsection (d)'' of CAA section 112. At least one of these
commenters cited CAA sections 112(c), (d)(1), (d)(3)(A), (d)(6), and
(f) as examples of how the CAA authorizes the EPA to impose emissions
standards only on particular source categories or subcategories. The
commenter asserted that none of these provisions expressly authorize or
reasonably can be construed to allow the EPA to develop and impose an
emissions standard that applies across multiple source categories. The
commenter contended that for this reason, the EPA's proposal to apply
fenceline monitoring to site-wide emissions, including emissions from
source categories beyond the SOCMI source categories addressed in this
rulemaking, is legally unfounded; and if the EPA decides to impose a
fenceline monitoring program in the final rule, it must be limited such
that it applies only to emissions from particular source categories.
Other commenters said they were concerned that the proposed approach
results in the EPA's establishing the emission point as the facility
boundary, thereby expanding the definition of an affected source. The
commenters provided an example saying that the proposed rule does not
contain provisions that would exclude a site from fenceline monitoring
for benzene due to the presence of a gasoline storage tank onsite that
is used to refuel mobile equipment and is not even part of the HON
process.
Some of the commenters stated that the imposition of fenceline
monitoring requirements to non-HON sources is unreasonable, arbitrary,
and capricious. One of these commenters said the EPA is conducting the
technology review for the SOCMI category and not for other collocated
categories; and despite this, the EPA is using this action as a vehicle
to impose requirements on other source categories through the HON
rather than evaluating such controls in the context of the applicable
CAA section 112 standard. The commenter asserted that such use of a
source-specific technology review to promulgate requirements that
affect an unknown number of other source categories is arbitrary and
capricious and circumvents statutory design. The commenter added that
the EPA has not assessed the cost that would fall on other source
categories and that the EPA's proposal failed to properly provide
notice or provide a meaningful opportunity to comment to all interested
stakeholders.
Some commenters said that they support the EPA's proposal to allow
facilities to account for offsite, upwind sources through the use of
near-field source correction under 40 CFR 63.184(g); however, these
commenters said they disagree with the EPA's assertion that this option
should not be provided for onsite, non-source category emissions. These
commenters asserted that the EPA cannot regulate sources beyond those
subject to the technology review; thus, the commenters said, the EPA
should add provisions in the final rule similar to those at 40 CFR
63.658(i) from the 2015 Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule to address
onsite sources that are not part of the affected source under the HON
and P&R I NESHAP. However, at least one commenter objected to adding
provisions in the final rule similar to those at 40 CFR 63.658(i) and
stated that inclusion of facility-wide emissions in the action level is
appropriate because it will support the control of toxic air pollutants
emitted from all sources within the facility, all of which affect
fenceline communities, and also avoids the development of complex and
uncertain processes to attribute emissions from collocated sources and
equipment that may be used in processes associated with multiple source
categories. This commenter pointed out that only a small number of
refineries (13) have approved site-specific monitoring plans, and only
five of those plans include procedures for excluding onsite sources
owned by the refinery but that do not fall within the refinery source
category.
Another commenter provided a real-life example of the difficulty of
dealing with onsite, non-source category emissions where Facility A,
which is subject to the HON, owns and operates an Industrial Site that
supplies services to other tenants, including wastewater treatment. The
commenter said that Facility A does not use, produce, or emit EtO from
any of its own processes; however, two tenants--Facility B and Facility
C--are located inside the Industrial Site, and both emit EtO (and
Facilities B and C are not subject to the HON but are subject to 40 CFR
63, subpart PPP). The commenter said that Facilities B and C send
miniscule liquid EtO emissions to the WWTP for disposal; and reported
emissions by Facility A of EtO from their WWTP, since taking over the
Industrial Site, are less than 1 lb/yr. Using this example, the
commenter contested that it is inappropriate to require Facility A to
perform EtO fenceline monitoring and conduct a root cause analysis with
subsequent corrective action because Facility A does not use, store, or
emit EtO from any of their own production processes (i.e., Facility A
only has EtO wastewater emissions from treating EtO wastewater from
Facility B and Facility C as the site owner). The commenter made the
following additional points: (1) The amount of EtO emitted to the air
from wastewater obtained and treated by other facilities from Facility
A has been less than a pound for the past 3 years; (2) the WWTP is
located outside the fenceline of the Industrial Site; (3) Facility A
does not have the authority to perform root cause analysis or
corrective actions on facilities they do not have operational control
over; and (4) if action level concentrations are found, it is not
possible to determine whether the EtO comes from Facility B and/or
Facility C, nor their individual contributions. For the Facility A
WWTP, there is not a logical corrective action for emissions of less
than 1 lb/yr that would change the EtO concentrations found in the
ambient air. Other commenters provided similar examples and expressed
similar concerns.
Response: The EPA considered the potential applicability of
fenceline monitoring as part of this proposed technology review.
Generally, the EPA has found fenceline monitoring to be an effective
tool when fugitive or ground-level releases are significant or where we
have identified considerable uncertainties in HAP emissions estimates
from fugitive emission sources such that they affect our decisions
relative to whether there exists residual risk, for example. Other
considerations include the types of pollutants that are emitted, the
availability of fenceline monitoring measurement methods for the key
pollutants, proximity of residences or other areas where people could
be exposed to emissions at or near facility fencelines, and the other
types of monitoring that are already required or are being considered.
Regarding the question of including onsite, non-source category
emissions in the fenceline monitoring work practice standard, we
proposed not to allow
[[Page 43004]]
corrections to monitoring for onsite non-source category sources, as
they were included in emissions sources modeled to develop the action
levels. In other words, the action levels in the primary fenceline
monitoring program are based on expected facility-wide emissions and
account for contributions from these non-source category sources. For
more details, see the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Fenceline Monitoring located in the SOCMI Source
Category that are Associated with Processes Subject to HON and for
Fenceline Monitoring that are Associated with Processes Subject to
Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0730-0091) and the residual risk technical support document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the SOCMI Source Category in Support of
the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (Docket Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0085). The secondary action level for chloroprene
adopted under CAA section 112(f)(2) appropriately anticipates the need
for additional reductions of this pollutant in order to further the
goal to protect public health from whole-facility chloroprene
emissions. Further, in most cases, sources with HON or P&R I source
categories also account for a significant portion of the action level
at the fenceline such that the option to attribute and correct monitors
for emissions from collocated sources and equipment that may be used in
processes associated with multiple source categories becomes a very
complex and unnecessary process. In the Petroleum Refinery example, we
note that the option to correct monitors for non-source category
sources within the fenceline was found to be very difficult to
implement practically and that the option was subsequently removed from
most site-specific monitoring plans.
We agree that the circumstance described by the commenter, although
uncommon, might result in a situation where the most significant
contribution would not be from the portions of the facility that are
subject to the process limits established for the HON or P&R I source
itself. In this case we would apply the requirements based on how the
source has been defined for the purposes of applicability of CAA
section 112 standards, which is any stationary source or group of
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common
control. The commenter indicates that these facilities are not under
common control, therefore Facility A would have to conduct fenceline
monitoring because it does use, produce, and emit EtO, and it is
subject to the HON, as the commenter indicates that it treats
wastewater from Facilities B and C in its wastewater treatment process.
In this case, Facility A could correct monitoring readings for offsite
impacts using a site-specific monitoring plan. Depending on the
orientation of Facilities B and C, this approach would require real-
time monitoring of portions of the fenceline bordering Facilities B
and/or C and is allowed by the proposed and final rule (see 40 CFR
63.184(g)). The commenter presumes that the amount of EtO emitted by
the treatment process is miniscule, but that is precisely the question
that fenceline monitoring is envisioned to address and to ensure that
emissions are maintained at low levels. We believe even in this
situation, the fenceline monitoring standard is reasonable and provides
for an approach to address the commenter's concerns. Further, we reject
the notion that our proposal failed to properly provide notice or to
provide a meaningful opportunity to comment for all interested
stakeholders. The major source to which these standards apply is by
definition under common control. Unless the sources are subject to the
HON and P&R I standards, there is no requirement for operators of other
source categories to comply with these requirements. Therefore, we
reject the notion that this proposal is arbitrary and capricious and
circumvents statutory design.
Comment: With regard to the EPA's proposed fenceline monitoring
requirements, numerous commenters contended that background
concentrations need to be accounted for when calculating the
incremental contributions from EtO-emitting facilities. A commenter
said that without understanding the significance of high ambient
background levels, it is not possible to determine a facility's true
impact on ambient concentrations above the background level or the risk
of EtO exposure. This commenter added that implementation of fenceline
monitoring when background is unknown has the potential to generate
data that will not represent what is intended, will require follow up
action to correct problems that do not exist, and has the potential to
frighten communities near facilities in the absence of elevated risk.
Similarly, other commenters asserted that facilities are likely to show
exceedances attributable not only to their own emissions, but also from
background levels of EtO and emissions of EtO sources from offsite
sources. These commenters said that background concentrations threaten
a potentially endless cycle of investigations for the source of
emissions which are beyond the EPA's regulatory authority or the
facility's control; and the proposed fenceline monitoring requirements
improperly attempt to turn facilities into mini ambient air quality
regulators, requiring them to investigate and analyze fenceline
exceedances that could be caused by another facility, background EtO
levels, or simply an error in sampling due to the inability to
accurately measure EtO at the incredibly low levels proposed.
Some of these commenters acknowledged that the EPA's proposed
sampling protocol attempts to address background concentrations by
taking the highest sample and subtracting the lowest sample from it;
however, these commenters said it is not clear how the proposed
protocol fully addresses background concentrations and other questions
that remain regarding high background concentrations that have been
present in sampling conducted by other states, including at National
Air Toxic Trends Station (NATTS) sites. These commenters as well as
others said that background monitors in many cases show higher
concentrations than monitors located within or nearby EtO-emitting
facilities. Some of these commenters provided additional information
about background EtO concentration data available from two studies
conducted by state agencies:
A 2022 study conducted by the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division titled ``Ethylene
Oxide Monitoring Report'' included EtO monitors near known emitters in
addition to areas designated as ``background'' locations away from any
known emitters of EtO. The 2020 concentration data for one of the
background monitors located in South DeKalb showed that background
concentrations ranged from a low of 0.10 [mu]g/m3 to a high
of 3.7 [mu]g/m3 and that the monthly difference between the
highest and lowest reported concentration value ranged from 0.22 [mu]g/
m3 to 3.2 [mu]g/m3, with an average monthly
difference of 0.88 [mu]g/m3.
A 2022 study conducted by the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection in the Kanawha Valley, collecting background
concentration data in Guthrie and Buffalo, West Virginia, revealed that
EtO background measurements were made in Guthrie that ranged from 0.059
[mu]g/m3 to 1.74 [mu]g/m3 and in Buffalo that ranged from
0.20 [micro]g/m3 to 1.31 [micro]g/m3.
[[Page 43005]]
Commenters claimed that the reports published by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, and
by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection indicate
that background concentrations of EtO can vary significantly, including
up to more than an order of magnitude greater than EPA's proposed
action level of 0.20 [mu]g/m3. Other commenters noted that
the EPA's AirToxScreen presents EtO background levels as zero (so risks
associated with background levels of EtO are not included in
AirToxScreen maps and reports); however, according to commenters, this
is highly unlikely to be the case, as shown by data in the EPA's NATTS
sites, which are designed to be representative of community air toxics
concentrations. Another commenter cited the West Virginia final report
titled ``Ethylene Oxide Monitoring--Characterization of South
Charleston and Institute, West Virginia and Surrounding Areas February
21, 2023'' and made the following observations of the measured EtO
background concentrations from year 2018 through November 2021 at
various monitoring points across the United States:
There is not even a single data point below the EPA's 100-
in-1 million threshold of 0.01 parts per billion by volume (ppbv).
The average concentration is 0.122 ppbv which is 12 times
higher than the EPA's 100-in-1 million threshold of 0.01 ppbv.
Several monitoring sites have an annual average
concentration of 0.15 ppbv (0.27 ug/m3 or higher).
Many of these values are measured at sites that are not
close to industrial sites where EtO is manufactured or used, thus
further calling into question whether the EPA really has the correct
residual risk value.
Citing the EPA produced document titled ``EPA's Work to Understand
Background Levels of Ethylene Oxide'' (most recently updated in October
2021), another commenter presented the following questions that they
claimed to be unanswered: (1) Is EtO in use by unpermitted sites that
are causing these levels?; (2) is EtO coming from other activities/
sources such as mobile sources, biogenic sources?; and (3) when the
IRIS inhalation URE value was developed, did the analysis include
consideration of the background dosing?
Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertions that
background concentrations of EtO are not accounted for in the proposed
fenceline monitoring provisions. The primary driving force for
determining when a facility must initiate root cause analysis is the
annual average [Delta]c value; a root cause analysis is required
whenever the annual average [Delta]c value is higher than the action
level. For EtO, the annual average [Delta]c is the average of the most
recent 73 individual sampling period [Delta]c measurements. The
sampling period [Delta]c is calculated as the sampling period's highest
sample result minus the sampling period's lowest sample result. If
background EtO levels are persistent in the area, this will be captured
by both the high and low concentration measurements used to develop the
[Delta]c values and the subtraction will result in only the facility's
contributions to the EtO concentrations at the fenceline. As such,
background levels are accounted for in the determination of each
sampling period's [Delta]c value, and subsequently the annual average
[Delta]c value.
If, as commenters indicate, background EtO levels are inconsistent,
the annual average [Delta]c value must still shift above the action
level before root cause analysis must be performed. The power of a
single [Delta]c value to cause undue root cause analysis is mitigated
when it is averaged with the other measurements. Single events where
background EtO levels are elevated will be insufficient to cause the
annual average [Delta]c to exceed the action level. If a single
[Delta]c value is large enough to skew the annual average derived from
72 other datapoints above the action level, the EPA expects that an
emission event occurred and root cause analysis is appropriate.
Lastly, with respect to commenters' concerns that offsite
facilities may contribute to EtO measurements at their facility, we
note that owners and operators may submit site-specific monitoring
plans to subtract background EtO concentrations from upwind emitters
from impacted monitors pursuant to 40 CFR 63.184(g)(1) through (4).
The questions posed by the commenter about unpermitted sites
emitting EtO or whether unknown sources are developing EtO are out of
scope for this rulemaking. Section IV.A.3.a of this preamble addresses
the EtO IRIS URE value.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the EPA clarify that
very small amounts of the six compounds (i.e., benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
chloroprene, ethylene dichloride, EtO, and vinyl chloride) that may be
produced, used, or stored at trace levels, as incidental by-products,
and as impurities, should not trigger long-term fenceline monitoring
requirements. Some of these commenters contended that the proposed
applicability is unjustifiably broad, rendering it arbitrary and
capricious. The commenters requested that the EPA provide a de minimis
level that would trigger fenceline monitoring requirements; and several
of the commenters also requested that the applicability be limited to
regulated HON CMPUs. Some of the commenters requested that the EPA
create exclusions for predetermined de minimis activities such as:
housekeeping or building maintenance, lab and research activities,
combustion emissions, transportation emissions, and incidental by-
products or impurities. Similarly, a commenter asserted that the EPA
uses the phrase ``use, emit, or process'' without any other criteria or
definition of what this language means.
A commenter pointed out that according to the EPA's AP-42
Compilation of Air Emission Factors, the combustion of fuels is likely
to generate emissions of benzene and 1,3-butadiene (see AP-42, Tables
1.3-9, 1.4-3, 3.1-3, 3.3-2, and 3.4-3). The commenter added that since
nearly all HON and NSPS III/NNN/RRR sources are expected to contain
natural gas piping, and natural gas contains benzene, and the
applicability of the fenceline monitoring requirement is based on site
emissions, it is reasonable to conclude that nearly all HON and NSPS
III/NNN/RRR sites are expected to be subject to the fenceline
monitoring requirement regardless of whether the SOCMI processes at the
site emit benzene or 1,3-butadiene. Another commenter said that
implementing a fenceline monitoring program for any by-product/impurity
that is intentionally minimized by the owner or operator is not cost-
effective or environmentally beneficial, and as such, warrants
additional consideration. The commenter stated that chloroprene is a
by-product/impurity produced in their vinyl chloride monomer production
process and would be emitted at much lower quantities than ethylene
dichloride or vinyl chloride; and as described in the HON RTR Proposal,
if the purpose of the fenceline program is to determine equipment
leaks, the leaks would be more readily detected with vinyl chloride
monomer or ethylene dichloride rather than through monitoring for a
contaminant that may or may not be present in the process fluid.
Commenters suggested that to avoid trace levels of these compounds
triggering the monitoring programs, the EPA should establish additional
applicability criteria for triggering the monitoring requirements given
that the proposed fenceline air monitoring
[[Page 43006]]
provisions are complex, take significant time to implement, and appear
to be required for an infinite period. The commenters said the economic
burden for fenceline monitoring is not justified for facilities with
low levels of emissions (below de minimis thresholds) for any proposed
fenceline compound. Some of these commenters recommended that the EPA
clarify that when the EPA uses the phrase ``if the site uses, produces,
stores, or emits'' one of the covered chemicals, this means that
greater than 25,000 lb/yr of a chemical must be used, produced, or
stored in HON CMPUs at the source. Commenters added that in order to
trigger fenceline monitoring, the air emissions for a covered chemical
should also be greater than 1 tpy (~ 0.23 lb/hr annual average) from
HON CMPUs at the source. Commenters said that the rationale for using
25,000 lb/yr aligns with other EPA regulations such as 40 CFR 372.25(a)
which is threshold for reporting of air emissions under the EPA's
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Section 313 program; and a
1 tpy emission threshold (<0.25 lb/hr) is a low threshold for then
triggering the fenceline air monitoring program. Another commenter said
that, given that the Agency selected the fenceline action levels by
modeling emissions from the post-control emissions file in the residual
risk assessment and selecting the maximum annual average fenceline
concentration, one potential option for adopting a trigger threshold
for fenceline monitoring would be to set emission thresholds at 50
percent of the source category emissions for the facilities that were
used to set the proposed action level. The commenter said that this
approach should also be applied for EtO and chloroprene because the
Agency proposed to find acceptable risk and an ample margin of safety
for these pollutants after implementation of the controls, thus making
additional reductions of EtO and chloroprene unnecessary and
unsupported by any rulemaking authority.
A commenter suggested that if the EPA does not establish de minimis
applicability thresholds, then the final rule should include a
provision that allows for fenceline monitoring to be discontinued at a
site after 2 years of non-detect fenceline monitoring concentrations
for a compound. The commenter said that a site with non-detect
fenceline concentrations does not drive the risk assessment for that
compound.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters that the fenceline
monitoring provisions are unjustly broad. Per 40 CFR 63.184, the
fenceline monitoring provisions are applicable ``for each source as
defined in Sec. 63.101, and for each source as defined in Sec.
63.191.'' The definitions of source at 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 CFR 63.191
point to 40 CFR 63.100 and 40 CFR 63.190, respectively, where
applicability is stated. For the HON, only those sources manufacturing
as a primary product one or more of the chemicals in Table 1 to NESHAP
subpart F, or tetrahydrobenzaldehyde, or crotonaldehyde; or using as a
reactant or manufacturing as a product, or co-product, one or more of
the HAP listed in Table 2 to NESHAP subpart F are subject to the
provisions. For NESHAP subpart I, only those emissions specified from
the processes subject to 40 CFR 63.190(b)(1) through (6) are subject to
the fenceline provisions. Therefore, any concerns about obligations to
meet fenceline monitoring requirements for pollutants developed as
impurities or found in feedstock in trace amounts are unfounded, as
these materials are not ``products,'' which, by definition, exclude by-
products, isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace
contaminants per the definition at 40 CFR 63.101 or, in the case of
NESHAP subpart I, are not the specified pollutants from the processes
to which the subpart applies. For P&R I sources subject to NESHAP
subpart U, we note that the fenceline monitoring requirements reference
40 CFR 63.101 and the same logic can be applied.
To the commenter's assertion about emissions from boilers,
housekeeping, building maintenance, or lab and research activities
triggering fenceline monitoring requirements, we note that these are
not considered within SOCMI or P&R I sources per the applicability of
the term at 40 CFR 63.100. Thus, there would be no need to implement
fenceline monitoring if these are the only sources emitting benzene,
1,3 butadiene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, EtO, or chloroprene
at a facility. Therefore, for the reasons previously stated, there is
no need to set a minimum threshold for fenceline monitoring as the rule
already provides criteria targeting only SOCMI or P&R I sources using,
producing, storing, or emitting one or more of the six considered
pollutants and will not be triggered by low-level emissions from non-
source category processes.
However, we agree with the commenter that the proposed language
could be interpreted such that emissions from non-HON or P&R I
processes could trigger the fenceline monitoring requirement. As such,
we are revising 40 CFR 63.184(a)(1)(i) through (iv) and 40 CFR
63.184(b)(1)(i) and (ii) to state that owners and operators with an
affected source that uses, produces, stores, or emits one or more of
the target analytes must conduct fenceline monitoring for the
analyte(s) at their site. At proposal, we inadvertently used the word
site in these sections instead of affected source, which may have led
to confusion that non-HON or P&R I processes could have triggered
fenceline monitoring obligations when there were no HON or P&R I
processes at the site that use, produce, store, or emit benzene, 1,3
butadiene, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, EtO, or chloroprene. We
believe this change clarifies our original intent and helps to more
clearly target those facilities that were identified as needing
fenceline monitoring as part of our original analysis (see Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0091).
To address concerns with facilities producing, using, storing, or
emitting only low levels of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene
dichloride, or vinyl chloride, we are finalizing burden reduction
measures at 40 CFR 63.184(a)(3)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii). These provisions,
similar to those provided at 40 CFR 63.658(e)(3) of NESHAP subpart CC
for benzene, will allow facilities to skip fenceline measurement
periods for specific monitors once a certain number of fenceline
measurements are recorded to be one tenth or less than the finalized
action levels. We believe the addition of these provisions will unify
the finalized fenceline monitoring provisions between NESHAP subpart H
and NESHAP subpart CC so that collocated refinery processes will not
become subject to additional monitoring if they have already
demonstrated levels of benzene at the fenceline that allow the owner or
operator to qualify for a reduced sampling frequency and support
facilities producing, using, storing, or emitting only low levels of
the targeted pollutants from their affected sources. We note that these
provisions are not being provided for EtO and chloroprene due to their
associated risk and the finalized secondary actions levels having been
set at three times the representative detection limit (RDL), and thus
demonstrating sufficiently low fenceline concentrations to allow
skipping monitoring periods is not possible. Additionally, for both EtO
and chloroprene, even for the primary action levels, one-tenth of the
action level would be below the method detection limit (MDL), and as
such, skipping monitoring periods would not be possible for these
pollutants. We also
[[Page 43007]]
note that for vinyl chloride, this option is limited to small sites
with perimeters less than or equal to 5,000 meters. We have chosen to
limit the reduced sampling frequency to these smaller sites because
these are the only sites where the canister samples are taken at the
same sampling location each sampling period; owners and operators of
sites with a perimeter larger than 5,000 meters are required to rotate
the sampling locations between sampling periods. As such, this
complicates the determination as to whether a larger site has
consistently low fenceline readings at a particular monitoring
location.
Comment: A commenter pointed out that when fenceline monitoring was
established for refineries, the EPA stated that benzene was
specifically chosen as the target analyte for petroleum refineries with
the understanding that a single HAP served as a surrogate for all
fugitive HAP, further stating that a single HAP simplified the
determination of compliance and set a clear action level. The commenter
contested that it is unclear why benzene cannot be the surrogate for
the species listed under the proposed EPA Method 325 fenceline
monitoring requirements. Moreover, the commenter added that a site
should only have to do the chlorinated species or EtO monitoring if it
is present in sufficient quantities such that their emissions would
create a concentration higher than MDL at the perimeter; the commenter
asserted that the EPA set their action levels based on modeling of site
emission inventories but did not incorporate any rationale for why
sites with less emissions must do such expensive monitoring. The
commenter suggested that sites should have the option to model or
demonstrate that their emissions would not be expected to exceed the
action levels without embarking on a costly monitoring program that
will just be reporting below detection level values.
Response: Benzene was selected as a surrogate for all HAP as part
of the fenceline monitoring provisions of NESHAP subpart CC due to its
near universal presence in process streams. HON and P&R I processes are
more diverse and there is no single chemical that is found with the
same frequency in process streams as benzene in petroleum refineries.
Setting one surrogate chemical to represent the variety of HON and P&R
I processes considered as part of this rulemaking would not produce
effective standards limiting fugitive emissions.
To the commenter's request to be able to model concentrations at
the fenceline to show that action levels will not be met, we point to
table 2 through table 7 in the document titled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for Fenceline Monitoring located in the
SOCMI Source Category that are Associated with Processes Subject to HON
and for Fenceline Monitoring that are Associated with Processes Subject
to Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0091). Fugitive emissions are, by nature, difficult to
measure and record and the data collected via the CAA section 114
request indicates that modeling is insufficient to anticipate fenceline
concentrations of the six target pollutants considered. Therefore, we
maintain that it is reasonable to require monitoring if a facility
whose SOCMI or P&R I affected sources use, produce, store, or emit any
of the pollutants specified at 40 CFR 63.184 to verify that actual
concentrations at fenceline are below the finalized action levels. No
changes are being made as a result of this comment.
Comment: Commenters said that they have concerns regarding
equipment and lab analytical capabilities on whether any laboratory is
capable of performing proposed EPA Method 327. The commenters asserted
that they were only able to identify one lab in North America that
could meet all requirements of proposed EPA Method 327. A commenter
suggested that to the extent that fenceline monitoring for EtO is
required, the EPA should allow for the use of EPA Method TO 15 for
initial monitoring for at least one (1) year until lab capabilities are
further established; or alternatively, the initiation of fenceline
monitoring be moved to at least two (2) years after the effective date
of the final rule. Another commenter encouraged the EPA to actively
engage in dialogue with commercial air laboratories in the method
review process to ensure that the procedures meet the EPA's quality
objectives of the program and also can be supported on a production
scale, both of which will be critical for the successful implementation
of the canister fenceline monitoring network. Another commenter
requested that the EPA provide a list of laboratories able to perform
proposed EPA Method 327.
A commenter recommended that the EPA work with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to improve proposed
EPA Method 327 given that NYSDEC analyzes VOCs in-house and has devoted
considerable resources into refining its EtO measurement procedures
over a seven year period. The commenter claimed that in a recent EPA
performance audit of the NYSDEC laboratory required for NATTS sites,
NYSDEC's EtO results were well within the 20 percent acceptability
range and outperformed the referee laboratory. The commenter said
proposed EPA Method 327 does not adequately address the issues that
lead to inaccurate EtO measurements including, but are not limited to,
the following:
The preconcentration system must be optimized for the
elimination of excess CO2 and water.
Slip-lining the transfer line in the gas chromatography
(GC) oven with the analytical column to minimize contact between the
concentrated slug and transfer line ensures that all or most of the
transfer takes place directly onto the analytical column, which
maximizes performance.
Ion 44 should be used for quantitation. Use of ions 15 or
29 did not produce acceptable results in the NYSDEC laboratory. Ion 15
was too noisy and ion 29 suffered from interference due to background
contributions from nitrogen. For NYSDEC, interference from trans 2-
butene for ion 44 was not found to be an issue for normal ambient air
samples due to the relatively low concentration of that substance in
those samples. However, trans-2-butene can interfere with quantitation
using ions 15 or 19, because, unlike ion 44, those are prominent masses
in the mass spectrum of trans-2-butene.
NYSDEC does not agree that bromofluorobenzene should be
mandated as a tuning agent. NYSDEC has had success tuning prior to each
run using perfluorotributylamine, per the manufacturer's
recommendation, and has found that tuning to meet the
bromofluorobenzene criteria can actually lower the sensitivity of the
instrument.
The use of internal standards for quantitation should not
be mandated, especially for reactive chemicals like EtO and acrolein,
as that procedure can produce biased results when the internal standard
is not as sensitive to instrumental conditions as the target chemical.
A better approach would be to use isotope dilution for the quantitation
of these compounds, as the doped compounds would presumably react the
same way in the analytical system. Given the anticipated very costly
procurement of such internal standards, this should not be mandated,
but instead suggested as a means to improve analytical performance for
these reactive compounds. NYSDEC calibrates before, during, and after
each analysis using the external standard approach and has complete
confidence that the instrument is producing the best data within the
confines of the system.
[[Page 43008]]
The commenter added that they strongly believe that any method
refinements that enable more accurate EtO measurements should be
implemented in all ambient sampling for that pollutant, including
samples collected at NATTS sites, because this would allow for
comparison of fenceline and background sites without methodological
considerations.
Response: The EPA recognizes the commenters' concerns that
laboratories may not currently have the capacity to conduct EPA Method
327 according to the timeline we proposed. Therefore, we are revising
the final rulemaking at 40 CFR 63.100(k)(12) (for HON) and 40 CFR
63.481(p) (for the P&R I NESHAP) such that with the exception of
fenceline monitoring of chloroprene at P&R I affected sources producing
neoprene, owners and operators are not required to initiate fenceline
monitoring until 2 years after the effective date of the final
rulemaking. This expanded timeline is necessary to allow commercial
labs to conduct the needed method development, to expand capacity, and
to develop the logistics needed to meet the requirements in the final
rule. For P&R I affected sources producing neoprene, we have changed
the compliance date for fenceline monitoring of chloroprene to begin no
later than October 15, 2024, or upon startup, whichever is later
subject to the owner or operator seeking the EPA's authorization of an
extension of up to 2 years from July 15, 2024. We note that that all
affected sources producing neoprene (there is only one) already have a
fenceline monitoring network in place for chloroprene as well as a lab
contracted to provide analysis.
We developed EPA Method 327 based on the requirements in EPA Method
TO-15A, best practices for measuring compounds like EtO, and enhanced
QA/QC required for a method that is to be used for compliance purposes.
Regarding the specific recommendations made by the commenter, the EPA
has made EPA Method 327 as performance-based as possible and considers
it important, when possible, to avoid prescriptive requirements to
allow commercial laboratories to develop their own approaches for
analysis.
Comment: Some commenters said that the EPA's proposed 300 parts per
trillion (ppt) detection limit for EtO (and 900 ppt fenceline action
threshold) are inadequate given that carcinogenic effects can be
persistent and cumulative. These commenters claimed that EtO is toxic
at 11 ppt in the ambient air; therefore, the EPA should mandate the use
of advanced monitoring technologies to achieve lower detection limits
and lower the action levels at the fenceline. A commenter remarked that
in Louisiana, the typical residential location is not set at some safe
distance from emissions; therefore, it is proper for the EPA to set
minimum detection levels at the fenceline of the facility's property
line, and not set the minimum detection level scalable to the duration
of dispersion from the facility to the residential receptor location.
Another commenter argued that developments in monitoring technology
that lower the detection levels for listed HAP must be considered
technological developments under CAA section 112(d)(6). This commenter
contended that new technological developments, such as the use of
proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometers and the use of Picarro
products that use cavity ring-down spectrometers should be adopted by
the EPA in its efforts to lower emissions in these source categories
with the proposed fenceline monitoring efforts in the rules.
Another commenter declared that it is important to note that the
method detection limit is nearly the same as the concentration that is
representative of 100-in-1 million risk; therefore, any detection
corresponds to an unacceptable level of risk. On the contrary, a
commenter said that given ambient air measurements made using the EPA's
TO-15/TO-15A summa canister method have a detection limit for EtO
higher than 0.02 ug/m3, it is possible that the actual level
could be above the EPA's 100-in-1 million risk level even if a
regulated source or an agency were to obtain non-detect results. This
commenter said that they are very concerned that the EPA has
established ambient air targets that neither an industrial source nor a
regulatory agency can demonstrate that they are meeting with current
air sampling methods; this raises practical questions about how one
demonstrates compliance with these air quality targets.
Response: The EPA recognizes the feedback from the commenters. We
evaluated multiple measurement approaches that could be used for
fenceline measurement, and there currently is not a measurement
approach with reliable sensitivity at the level representative of 100-
in-1 million cancer risk. The EPA found the only technically feasible
approach to measure EtO at the fenceline is a canister measurement
approach and analysis via gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
We developed EPA Method 327 based on the requirements in TO-15A, the
EPA's existing canister method, Best Practices for measuring compounds
like EtO, and enhanced QA/QC required for a method to be used for
numerical compliance purposes.
We acknowledge the comment regarding real-time monitoring, and
efforts are ongoing to evaluate different real-time monitoring
approaches for EtO which could be applied to fenceline monitoring;
however, we did not find these approaches to currently be technically
or economically feasible. The EPA disagrees with the commenters that
these real-time monitoring approaches are currently sensitive enough to
currently be applied to fenceline monitoring; however, the EPA has a
pathway for the use of these potential approaches through the
alternative test method provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(f) when the required
sensitivity is met, which is outlined in 40 CFR 63.184(i). We note that
based on response to another comment, we are revising the entry for 40
CFR 63.7(f) in the General Provisions table to NESHAP subpart F (Table
3) such that 40 CFR 63.7(f) applies.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns that the proposed
provisions for an alternative test method at 40 CFR 63.184(i)(3)
require the method detection limit of the alternative method to be at
least an order of magnitude (i.e., ten-fold) below the action level for
the compound(s) that will be monitored. A commenter indicated the
proposed action level of 0.2 ug/m3 for EtO will prohibit
some otherwise potentially viable alternative monitoring methods,
including the Picarro air monitoring system and many open-path
technologies. Commenters recommended that the EPA remove 40 CFR
63.184(i)(3) in its entirety. Commenters indicated that this
requirement limits flexibility and the ability for evaluation of
alternate methods via the EPA's current alternate methods processes.
A commenter further indicated that the proposed action levels for
EtO and chloroprene are three times the RDL for each compound and,
according to the EPA's technical memorandum, three times the RDL
represents the level where a test method performs with acceptable
precision. However, the commenter recommended that the EPA increase the
multiplier to 5 for EtO for consistency with proposed EPA Method 327.
The commenter argued that the requirement at 40 CFR 63.184(i)(3) for a
ten-fold reduction in MDL for alternative test methods is so
restrictive as to potentially eliminate the flexibility of real-time
monitoring because the MDL was only five times lower than an already
very low action level. The
[[Page 43009]]
commenter suggested the EPA revise the language at 40 CFR 63.184(i)(3)
to require methodologies with detection limits at or below those of the
reference standard (i.e., EPA Method 325A/B, EPA Method 327).
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the proposed
requirement that the MDL of the alternative method be at least an order
of magnitude less than the action level is too restrictive, and,
therefore, in the final rule we have revised the requirement at 40 CFR
63.184(i)(3) that the method detection limit of an alternative test
method must be at least one-third of the action level for the
compound(s) that will be monitored with the alternative method. The EPA
considers three times the MDL to describe the limit of quantification
of a method, or the point at which we have confidence in the accuracy
and precision of a method. We note this requirement is also consistent
with the EPA's approach for setting emission limits that are at least
three times the RDL. Such an approach ensures that the standard is at a
level that addresses measurement variability and is in a range that can
be measured with reasonable precision. Requiring the detection limit of
alternative measurement approaches to be at least one-third of the
action level will ensure that measurements made near the action level
are of reasonable precision.
We note that while the EPA has reduced the requirements for the
minimum detection limit of alternative measurement approaches, when
calculating the sampling period [Delta]c, an owner or operator must
still use zero as the lowest sample result when a measurement is below
the MDL and must still use the MDL as the highest sample result if all
sample results are below the MDL. The use of this approach in
determining [Delta]c incentivizes the use of technology capable of
measuring the lowest possible concentration for the target compound.
b. NSPS
The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed
NSPS review, including our determination to include more stringent
requirements for SOCMI equipment leaks, air oxidation unit processes,
distillation operations, and reactor processes in the new NSPS subparts
(i.e., NSPS subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, respectively).
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding the NSPS review for SOCMI equipment leaks,
air oxidation unit processes, distillation operations, and reactor
processes. Comment summaries and the EPA's responses to additional
issues raised regarding the proposed requirements resulting from our
NSPS review are in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
i. Process Vents
Comment: Several commenters said that they opposed the EPA's
proposal to eliminate the TRE index value concept in the new NSPS
subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa. The commenters provided the following
arguments:
The TRE index value has been an integral part of many
technology-based air standards since its initial development, serving
as a mechanism for determining cost effectiveness and triggering the
requirements for process vent control (see, e.g., the preamble to the
1994 HON adoption, which states that the TRE concept is appropriate
because it ``can be used to reflect all possible combinations of
various factors that affect emission rates and likelihood of current
control'' (citing 59 FR 19416) and ``would provide consistency between
the HON[,] the recently issued [control techniques guidelines] for
SOCMI process vents. . .[and] the applicability criteria for the three
SOCMI process vents NSPS'' (59 FR 19418)). The EPA determined that BSER
was 98 percent control (or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmvd at 3
percent O2) of sources with a TRE less than or equal to 1.0
when it promulgated these rules.
While the EPA discusses its basis for removing the TRE
index value > 1.0 alternative emission standard, it provides no
discussion for why the limited applicability exemption in the NSPS (TRE
> 4.0 for NSPS subpart III and TRE > 8.0 for NSPS subparts NNN and RRR)
is proposed to be removed. The EPA must explain why this exemption
should be removed and provide an opportunity for the public to comment
before taking final action to modify or remove it.
Voluntary control of some process vents with a TRE index
value greater than 1.0 does not imply that controlling all process
vents with a TRE index value greater than 1.0 constitutes the BSER.
While controlling a subset of process vents with a TRE index value
greater than 1.0 may be cost effective, the EPA's cost analysis for
controlling such vents significantly understates the cost of installing
additional controls such as a thermal oxidizer.
The fact that a control device at one stationary source
controls multiple process vents (as opposed to a single process vent)
does not mean that in all cases control of multiple process vents is
cost-effective. If the cumulative emissions from the process vents are
small, then even controlling all of them with one control device is not
cost effective.
The EPA's conclusion that the TRE index value calculation
is theoretical, complex, uncertain, and difficult to enforce is overly
broad and cannot be applied to the regulated industry as a whole. The
issues the EPA cites related to calculation of the TRE index value do
apply in instances with few organic compounds in the stream, and in
instances where facilities have readily available process data obtained
from source testing, other direct measurements, or permit limits.
Observations from one facility's TRE index value calculation approach
should not be construed as representative of 284 facilities.
The EPA's cost analysis (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0011) is not well supported and significantly underestimates
the cost of installing and operating a thermal oxidizer. The EPA
presents a total annual cost of $98,429 and a VOC emissions reduction
of 9.1 tpy from the elimination of the TRE concept and the imposition
of control requirements for all process vents. The EPA references the
HON technology review memorandum in support of the cost calculations;
however, that memorandum does not include a cost analysis of emission
reduction calculations for NSPS sources. Furthermore, the EPA's
proposed capital cost of $65,577 for a thermal oxidizer sized to
control a 10 scfm stream is unrealistic; and it is also unrealistic to
assume that a facility would install a thermal oxidizer simply for a 10
scfm stream. The EPA's cost algorithm significantly underestimates the
costs associated with design and engineering of such projects. A
commenter provided an example at one of their existing affected
facilities where if NSPS NNNa is triggered via modification or
reconstruction, the facility would need to install control equipment
estimated at a conservative amount of $500,000 in order to control 0.07
tpy of VOC result from vents from recovery scrubbers, or about $7.14M
per ton of VOC removed. The commenter
[[Page 43010]]
suggested that if the EPA is going to eliminate the TRE concept, that
the EPA consider a cost effectiveness cut-off that is scaled to
inflation that could avoid absurd results such as this.
The EPA has ignored the fact that facilities that would
now be required to control Group 2 halogenated streams would not only
have to control organic HAPs using a thermal oxidizer, but would also
have to incur costs to design, engineer, and install controls for acid
gas and dioxin/furan emissions.
A commenter questioned why removing the TRE concept for the SOCMI
sector is not arbitrary given that no action was taken on the TRE
concept in the recent RTR of the MON, conducted just 3 years ago.
Some commenters suggested that the EPA could keep the TRE index
value concept but raise the threshold, or establish a mass-based
criterion below which emission controls are not required such that the
rules would only require control where it is cost-effective (e.g.,
limit applicability of the NSPS to affected facilities at a site whose
cumulative VOC emissions are greater than 25 tpy). A commenter pointed
out that the proposed HON rulemaking requires control of process vents
that emit greater than 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP, and suggested
that a similar mass-based VOC emissions threshold below which control
is not required be added to the SOCMI NSPS rules to avoid control being
required for vent streams with very negligible VOC emissions. The
commenter pointed out that the EPA included a mass-based emission
threshold in NSPS subpart DDD at 40 CFR 60.560(g). The commenter
provided an example of one of their distillation columns where the
vacuum jet system vent emits very low amounts of VOC emissions (<0.0001
lb/hr uncontrolled), the net heating value is very low or negligible,
and the vent stream contains primarily nitrogen and/or water vapor. The
commenter said that they would have to then build an emission control
device to manage this stream.
Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR
25080, April 25, 2023), the statutory review of these process vent NSPS
(subparts III, NNN, and RRR) focused on whether there are any emission
reduction techniques used in practice that achieve greater emission
reductions than those currently required by the current NSPS and
whether any such practices have become the BSER. Based on this review,
we have determined that the BSER for reducing VOC emissions from these
SOCMI processes remains combustion (e.g., incineration, flares), and
that the current emission standard of 98 percent reduction of TOC
(minus methane and ethane) or reduction of TOC (minus methane and
ethane) to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv on a dry basis corrected
to 3 percent oxygen continues to reflect the BSER.
While we found no change in the BSER for reducing VOC emissions
from air oxidation units, distillation operations, and reactor
processes, we are finalizing the removal of the entire TRE concept,
including the alternative of maintaining a TRE index value greater than
1 without the use of control device and the limited applicability
exemptions (i.e., TRE > 4.0 for NSPS subpart III and TRE > 8.0 for NSPS
subparts NNN and RRR) for purposes of NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and
RRRa. We stand by the rationale we provided in the preamble to the
proposed rule for not including the TRE concept in NSPS subparts IIIa,
NNNa, and RRRa, which is summarized as follows: (1) Based on the
responses to our CAA section 114 request, we observed that some
facilities are controlling continuous process vents that are not
required by the NSPS subparts III, NNN, or RRR to be controlled per the
results of the TRE index value calculation; (2) based on the responses
to our CAA section 114 request, we observed that facilities are routing
multiple continuous process vents to a single APCD; (3) determining a
TRE index value for certain process vent streams is often theoretical,
can be extremely complicated, and is uncertain; and (4) because the TRE
index value is largely a theoretical characterization tool, it can be
very difficult to enforce.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April
25, 2023), in reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is
``appropriate'' to revise the standards of performance that reflects
the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of
BSER, the EPA considers the following information:
Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
Any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
As previously stated, some owners and operators do not use the TRE
index value to determine whether a vent stream is required to be
controlled. While we agree with commenters that owners and operators
control vent streams that have a TRE index value greater than 1.0 for
reasons other than the desire to avoid the TRE calculation, the fact is
that owners and operators are controlling vent streams that have a TRE
index value greater than 1.0 (possibly to comply with state or local
regulations regarding VOCs or to meet a BACT limit), which is
information relevant to our CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review of the
standards. Given that the TRE concept has been used since each original
NSPS adoption, we consider owners and operators controlling vent
streams that have a TRE index value greater than 1.0 to be a pollution
control measure (i.e., an advance in process operations) in our
analysis. Additionally, the removal of the TRE concept simplifies the
determination as to whether owners and operators must control a vent
stream and thus, the applicability process is easier to implement.
We disagree with commenters' assertions that the EPA did not
provide evidence that the TRE concept is largely theoretical and, as a
result, difficult to verify. As identified in the document titled Clean
Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous Process
Vents Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are Associated with
Processes Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end
Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and
Resins NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to
Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAP (Docket Item ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0094), one facility that received the CAA section 114 request
provided over 300 pages of modeled runs used to determine certain
characteristics of their continuous process vents to be utilized as
part of the TRE index value calculations. Reviewing this information
revealed
[[Page 43011]]
that in many cases, the facility struggled to unify the modeled runs
with actual conditions at the facility and in some cases made arbitrary
decisions to allow the model to function. While we agree with
commenters that the TRE index value can be derived from less
theoretical methods, other responses to the CAA section 114 request did
not indicate how parameters used in the TRE index value calculations
were determined and commenters did not provide sufficient information
to show which methods were most common throughout industry. Given the
theoretical nature of the TRE index value, the EPA maintains that
verifying TRE index values is arduous because it can involve relying on
significant process knowledge in order to confirm compositions of vent
streams, vent stream flowrates, vent stream net heating values, and
hourly emissions. It may also require verification of other facility
assumptions (e.g., operational conditions and constraints), especially
if modeling was used. This logic applies equally to existing, new, and
modified sources and thus is one of the reasons why the EPA is not
including the TRE concept in NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa as part
of this rulemaking.
We agree with commenters that the TRE index value has been an
integral part of many technology-based air standards since its initial
development. In fact, we said as much in the document titled CAA
111(b)(1)(B) review for the SOCMI air oxidation unit processes,
distillation operations, and reactor processes NSPS subparts III, NNN,
and RRR (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0011). The TRE
concept is almost 40 years old; it was first introduced in a December
1984 EPA document (EPA-450/3-84-015; see attachment to Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0011). However, even if it has been used in the
past, we believe that for purposes of the new NSPS subparts NNNa, IIIa,
and RRRa, certain aspects of its underlying development are clearly no
longer applicable or appropriate. For example, the EPA stated in the
1984 supporting materials (EPA-450/3-84-015) that the Agency attempted
to make the TRE index independent of inflation (e.g., the EPA assumed
fixed relative costs of various resources, such as carbon steel and
electricity), yet it is impossible to ignore inflation in the TRE
calculations due to the time that has passed since it was developed
(e.g., costs of carbon steel and electricity have undoubtedly increased
since the development of the TRE index).
Although the TRE index value may allow owners and operators to
allocate resources efficiently and ensure that the most significant
emission sources are targeted for control, the current use of the TRE
index value is only based on controlling a single vent stream with a
single APCD. This is an unrealistic scenario when compared to how
affected facilities actually control their vent streams; it is much
more likely that a facility routes numerous vent streams to the same
APCD (which is evident from observing the responses to our CAA section
114 request).
We do agree with commenters that our cost estimate for installing a
new recuperative thermal oxidizer (to control vent streams subject to
the NSPS) included in the proposed rule is unrealistic (e.g., we
severely underestimated flow rates needed to route vent streams with
low flow to APCDs). Although we still believe the use of the EPA's
control cost template is appropriate to estimate the cost of installing
a new recuperative thermal oxidizer (to control vent streams subject to
the NSPS), we revised our estimates to reflect the limitations of the
correlations associated with the EPA's control cost template, which
starts with a flow rate of 500 scfm. With these corrections, we
estimate that the average TCI to install a new recuperative thermal
oxidizer is about $167,000 (as opposed to the $66,000 estimate provided
in the proposed rule). However, our estimate is still much less than
the $500,000 estimate provided by commenters. One explanation for this
is that commenters may have used a much higher flow rate (e.g., 5,000
scfm as opposed to 500 scfm) and a ``Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer'' in
their cost analysis instead of a ``Recuperative Thermal Oxidizer.''
Moreover, commenters did not provide supporting information for their
estimated capital costs, so the EPA cannot corroborate their assertions
regarding cost.
In light of the fact that commenters were generally concerned about
the cost estimate for installing a new recuperative thermal oxidizer
(to control vent streams subject to the NSPS), we performed additional
analyses to evaluate the cost effectiveness of not including the TRE
concept in the new NSPS IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa. Instead of using $500,000
as suggested by a commenter, we used a TCI of $1,000,000 and the EPA's
control cost template (for installing a new recuperative thermal
oxidizer with 70 percent energy recovery). Even with this change in our
analysis, we continue to believe that revising the standard from a TRE
calculation to control of all vent streams is still cost effective when
considered along with the suite of process vent requirements evaluated
as a whole under our NSPS review. As stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), we considered four
different NSPS-triggering scenarios and a suite of proposed process
vent requirements combined together (including not only revising the
standard from a TRE calculation to control of all vent streams, but
also new operating and monitoring requirements for flares, the addition
of maintenance vent requirements, and the addition of adsorber
monitoring requirements). In this context, we conclude that, even with
our reevaluation of TCI for installing a new recuperative thermal
oxidizer, the cost-effectiveness value of the suite of process vent
requirements evaluated under our NSPS review is $4,890 per ton VOC
(instead of $4,570 per ton VOC as proposed), which we consider to be
reasonable.\51\ For further details on how we estimated cost and VOC
emissions reductions, see the document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review
for the SOCMI air oxidation unit processes, distillation operations,
and reactor processes NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR--FINAL, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ This cost effectiveness value is within the range of what
the EPA has considered reasonable for the control of VOC emissions
in other recent NSPS rulemakings. See, e.g., 88 FR 29982 (May 9,
2023) (finding a value of $6,800/ton of VOC emissions reductions
cost-effective for automobile and light duty truck surface coating
operations) (NSPS subpart MMa); see 89 FR 16820 (March 8, 2024)
(finding value of $5,540 per ton of VOC reduction reasonable for
controls identified as BSER in Oil and Natural Gas NSPS subpart
OOOOb and Emission Guidelines subpart OOOOc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenters' suggestion to include the TRE
concept in the new NSPS subparts NNNa, IIIa, and RRRa but raise the TRE
index value threshold to something greater than 1.0 (as opposed to not
including the TRE concept in its entirety, as proposed). Regarding a
commenter's assertion that removing the TRE concept is arbitrary given
no action was taken on the TRE concept in the MON RTR, we note that we
did not have data related to Group 2 process vents while developing
revisions to the MON. Setting an emission threshold with no knowledge
of which Group 2 MON vent streams would be impacted and the potential
cost or reductions associated with that revision would not have been
appropriate.
Finally, we agree with the commenter's request to include a mass-
based criterion below which emission controls are not required, but
only for NSPS subparts IIIa and NNNa (not NSPS
[[Page 43012]]
subpart RRRa). We believe a mass-based exemption criterion is not
needed for NSPS subpart RRRa given that we are finalizing, as proposed,
a volumetric flowrate-based exemption (0.011 scm/min at 40 CFR
60.700a(c)(3)) as well as a concentration-based exemption (300 ppmv TOC
as measured by EPA Method 18 or 150 ppmv TOC as measured by EPA Method
25A at 40 CFR 60.700a(c)(7)) in NSPS subpart RRRa. It is clear from
supporting documents that the EPA included the concentration-based
exemption in NSPS subpart RRR with the intent to relieve owners and
operators of controlling vent streams with very low amounts of VOC
emissions (see 58 FR 45948, August 31, 1993, as well as the document
titled Selection of the Low Concentration Cutoff, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking). Even so, we recognize that NSPS
subparts IIIa and NNNa do not contain these same exemptions. Therefore,
we are finalizing a mass-based exemption criterion of 0.001 lb/hr TOC
(for which emission controls are not required) for NSPS subparts IIIa
and NNNa at 40 CFR 60.610a(c)(1) and 40 CFR 60.660a(c)(6),
respectively. We based this criterion on the combination of both the
volumetric flowrate- and concentration-based exemptions that are
included in NSPS subparts RRR and the final RRRa. In other words, the
0.001 lb/hr TOC mass-based exemption criterion which we are finalizing
in NSPS subparts IIIa and NNNa is roughly equal to a vent stream with a
volumetric flowrate of 0.011 scm/min and a TOC concentration of 300
ppmv (assuming a TOC molecular weight of 80 grams per mole) included in
NSPS subparts RRR and the final RRRa. We also note that new affected
facilities should have greater flexibility in selecting cost-effective
control options during the design and construction phase (e.g., owners
and operators at greenfield sources are likely to have more flexibility
in spatial considerations compared to those at an existing source
leading to a potential reduction in the amount of complex piping and
construction materials needed to install an APCD).
Comment: A commenter said they support the EPA's proposal to
eliminate the relief valve discharge exemption from the definition of
``vent stream'' in NSPS, subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa such that any
relief valve discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a
violation of the emissions standard. However, several other commenters
opposed this proposal. Commenters requested that the EPA revise the
term ``violation'' to ``deviation'' in NSPS subparts IIIa (at 40 CFR
60.612a(b)), NNNa (at 40 CFR 60.662a(b)), and RRRa (at 40 CFR
60.702a(b)) regarding the prohibition of relief valve discharges (e.g.,
PRD releases to the atmosphere) and use of bypass lines. In addition,
the commenters requested that the EPA add the same PRD work practice
standard that the EPA has finalized in the MON (at 40 CFR
63.2480(e)(3)- (8)) and Ethylene MACT (at 40 CFR 63.1107(h)(3)-(8)),
and proposed in the HON (at 40 CFR 63.165(e)), into NSPS subparts IIIa,
NNNa, and RRRa at 40 CFR 60.612a(d), 60.662a(d), and 60.702a(d),
respectively. The commenters argued that the proposed regulatory
approach regarding eliminating the relief valve discharge exemption
does not represent BSER for the SOCMI source category given that relief
valve discharges that are routed to the atmosphere are necessary at
times for at least the following reasons:
Hazardous oxidation products: A discharge to a flare would
result in combustion products that are not desirable.
Chemical reactivity within flare system: Some affected
facilities may use a single large flare for emission control for a
given process area or group of process areas.
Physical obstruction within flare header system: In some
cases, there is a potential for certain compounds to block or restrict
portions of the flare header.
Streams containing oxygen: Some process streams and
equipment that PRDs protect contain mixtures of organic compounds and
oxygen especially in air oxidation processes. Some air oxidation
reactors have rupture discs as PRDs, and swings in air supply can cause
a rupture disc to fail.
Intolerable backpressure on the PRD: The operating
pressure in a large flare header system could increase from just
slightly over atmospheric pressure to a pressure in the 10-20 psig
range or higher for certain periods of time when upset venting occurs
or another highly intermittent flow occurs.
Intolerable liquid load on the flare Knock Out (KO) drum:
If the PRD is in liquid service, it is not acceptable to add a high-
volume liquid discharge from a PRD into a flare header. Flare KO drums
have a finite liquid capacity. If the liquid is highly volatile, severe
pipe contraction (due to auto-refrigeration) can potentially cause a
loss-of-containment failure of the flare header piping.
Technically impossible to collect discharges from PRDs on
portable/mobile containers.
It is not technically or economically feasible to install
a new large flare system to capture the discharge from a small number
of new PRDs from a new, reconstructed, or especially a modified SOCMI
source regulated under NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa.
Any chemical manufacturing facility with the potential to
release high volumes of chlorinated (halogenated) material from a PRD
release would be required to install and operate an oversized thermal
oxidizer equipped with acid gas controls that would be operated on
stand-by anytime the facility is in operation; and this operating mode
results in the facility also emitting large amounts of secondary
emissions such as greenhouse gases, VOCs, NOX, and CO.
PRDs prevent catastrophic breaches of process equipment
that could endanger both the lives of plant employees and nearby
communities, and result in damage to property; these catastrophic
breaches would result in much greater emissions than those resulting
from a PRD release. PRDs minimize the loss of process materials to the
surrounding environment.
Commenters also argued that it is not cost-effective to route all
PRDs to control devices. Some commenters pointed out that given that
the EPA concluded it is not cost-effective to route all PRDs to control
for HON and P&R (and instead proposed a work practice standard for PRDs
that vent to the atmosphere), it is unclear how the Agency could
presume such a requirement would be cost-effective as BSER and
appropriate to establish as an NSPS requirement. Additionally, the
commenters asserted that the only analysis the EPA uses to justify the
proposed change is the identification of a single lowest achievable
emissions rate (LAER) condition in the reasonably available control
technology (RACT)/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database. The commenters
argued that by equating a single LAER determination (based on the EPA's
RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database search regarding ID TX-0813171
for the ``Linear Alpha Olefins Plant,'' which is operated by INEOS
Oligomers USA, LLC) to BSER and not performing any additional analysis,
the EPA has ignored the statutory requirements of CAA Section 111(a)(1)
in that the Agency did not adequately account for the cost of achieving
reductions, nor did the Agency consider non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and more specifically, energy requirements.
A commenter added that PRDs serve a vitally important role as the
last line of defense to protect vessels and
[[Page 43013]]
equipment from mechanical failure should an overpressure situation
occur; therefore, it is important that they work correctly. The
commenter asserted that in the unlikely event that a pressure relief
event occurs, it is important to have the opportunity to analyze such
situations and implement corrective actions to further minimize the
chance that such an event will occur in the future.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that the removal of the
exemption for PRD releases to atmosphere is not BSER for NSPS subparts
IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa and that the EPA has ignored its obligations to
CAA section 111. For a thorough explanation of our BSER analysis and
the ways in which the EPA complied with the statutory requirements of
CAA section 111, refer to the document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review
for the SOCMI air oxidation unit processes, distillation operations,
and reactor processes NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR (see Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0011) and section III.C.3.b of the proposal
preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023). No changes are being made to
the final rule as a result of this comment.
While commenters state that only one facility was identified as
part of the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database, we note that one
additional facility was also identified as having prohibitions on PRDs
releasing to the atmosphere and were thus choosing to route those
pieces of equipment to an APCD. The Lyondell Chemical Bayport Choate
Plant in Harris, TX (permit number 137789) was identified as part of
our RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database search, but did not properly
state that they were also under restrictions for PRD releases to
atmosphere for streams containing more than 1 percent VOC. See the
updated document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review for the SOCMI air
oxidation unit processes, distillation operations, and reactor
processes NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR--FINAL, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking. Lyondell and the Linear Alpha Olefins
Plant were placed under these restrictions by the state of Texas in
2017 and 2015, respectively. In fact, the TCEQ published the document
titled Air Permit Technical Guidance for Chemical Sources Fugitive
Guidance in June 2018, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking. Section III of the document states that ``the following
practices are generally considered to be the minimum for BACT . . . .
New relief valves are required to vent to a control device for any
potential releases and as a result, any fugitive emissions are reduced.
Exceptions may be made if venting relief valve to control will result
in a safety concern, but this does not exempt the company from controls
such as equipping the valve with a rupture disk and pressure sensing-
device.'' The EPA maintains that between the guidance provided by the
TCEQ and ability of the two identified facilities to meet the
requirements, prohibiting PRD releases to atmosphere is adequately
demonstrated for purposes of determining BSER.
We also disagree with commenters' descriptions of why PRDs
releasing to atmosphere are necessary. We note that owners and
operators are not obligated to route PRDs to an APCD. In fact, we agree
with commenters that PRDs act as a last line of defense in uncommon
process conditions. Therefore, the EPA expects that a well-controlled
and rigorously designed process will not experience PRD releases
regularly, if at all. In those situations, as described by the
commenter, where PRD releases are necessary to prevent further
catastrophic failure, we agree with the commenter that safety is a
priority and PRD releases may be necessary. However, we note that we
are not prohibiting the release of PRDs in totality, just to
atmosphere, or their use in general and that process conditions leading
to catastrophic failure should be well outside regular operating
conditions. Therefore, the EPA expects that PRDs used to prevent
catastrophic failure can continue to function without reasonable
concern for release to atmosphere during regular operating conditions.
If the facility is concerned about a PRD releasing to atmosphere during
a catastrophic failure event, which should be exceptionally rare to
begin with, they may choose to route those emissions to an APCD to
avoid incurring a violation. The EPA maintains that releasing
uncontrolled volumes of emissions to atmosphere as a result of
preventable process upsets is characteristic of a violation.
To that point, we are not requiring owners or operators to route
PRD releases to an APCD, and there are no cost, non-air quality health,
environmental, or energy requirements as a result of this change. The
EPA expects no additional equipment will be needed for facilities to
meet the finalized provisions given our agreement with commenters that
PRD releases are unlikely to occur at all assuming a process is
rigorously designed, maintained, and controlled. If the owner or
operator chooses to control PRD emissions, it is their responsibility
to select whichever control method is most appropriate considering,
among other factors, the composition of the release, location of the
equipment, and overall safety. We note that facilities with new sources
that choose to route PRD emissions to an APCD will have the flexibility
in the design and construction phase to select options they consider to
be cost-effective and plan based on key criteria like placement of the
equipment. For existing sources that trigger the NSPS subpart IIIa,
NNNa, or RRRa via a modification or reconstruction, it is the
responsibility of the owner or operator to make the determination if
retrofitting PRDs to release to an APCD is feasible, cost-effective,
and necessary against the potential to incur violations as a result of
atmospheric release or if alternative process controls or operational
practices are more appropriate. Any cost, non-air quality health,
environmental, or energy impacts associated with the owner or operator
controlling PRD emissions, including those from halogenated streams as
identified by the commenter, were not considered as part of the BSER
analysis because they are only incurred at the discretion of an owner
or operator if they choose to go beyond the requirements of this
rulemaking and pursue control of emissions. For the above reasons, the
EPA has met its obligations under CAA section 111(a)(1).
We disagree with the commenter that the use of the term
``violation'' should be replaced with ``deviation'' in NSPS subparts
IIIa (at 40 CFR 60.612a(b)), NNNa (at 40 CFR 60.662a(b)), and RRRa (at
40 CFR 60.702a(b)). We used the term ``violation'' in the SOCMI NSPS
(subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa) to be consistent with the HON standards
that also regulate the SOCMI source category.
ii. Equipment Leaks
Comment: A commenter contended the EPA's BSER analysis was
insufficient because it failed to consider key equipment leak control
technologies, such as OGI, leak detection sensor networks (LDSNs), and
even options that the EPA previously considered in 2007 when developing
NSPS subpart VVa. The commenter asserted that the EPA must consider
these developments when evaluating and establishing the BSER for new,
reconstructed, and modified SOCMI process units. The commenter stated
that the EPA's review of the LDAR requirements in NSPS subpart VVa is
inconsistent with other reviews of NSPS equipment leak standards. In
particular, the commenter noted that in its November 15, 2021 proposal
for the
[[Page 43014]]
Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, the EPA evaluated several
monitoring techniques, and combinations of techniques, to determine if
the BSER for equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants should be
revised, including bimonthly and quarterly OGI monitoring in
combination with annual EPA Method 21 monitoring at a leak definition
of 10,000 ppm, and bimonthly OGI monitoring on all equipment with the
potential for VOC emissions. The commenter asserted that the EPA's
failure to consider OGI is erroneous considering the EPA has
established an Alternative Work Practice at 40 CFR 60.18(g) through (i)
that allows sources subject to NSPS subparts VV and VVa to conduct
bimonthly OGI monitoring with annual EPA Method 21 surveys at 500 ppm
as an alternative to conducting EPA Method 21 monitoring at the leak
definitions and frequencies in those subparts. The commenter added that
at a minimum, the EPA should evaluate whether this alternative work
practice now represents the BSER for NSPS subpart VVb.
Response: For the reasons explained below, we find that none of the
control options raised in the comment above (i.e., OGI, LDSN and
options considered in the last review) is BSER for equipment leaks from
new, modified, and reconstructed SOCMI process units.
Regarding OGI, we do not believe it replaces EPA Method 21 as BSER
for equipment leaks from SOCMI process units for the following reasons.
First, as shown by our equipment leaks regulations for the SOCMI
industry since the early 1980s, leaks in the area of 500 to 1000 ppm
can be detected using EPA Method 21 and repaired for most equipment in
this industry. The EPA acknowledges that OGI is effective at finding
large leaks quickly for many compounds, but, while OGI is capable of
detecting low-level leaks under certain conditions, it is difficult for
a camera operator to find low level-leaks with OGI under the range of
conditions that leak surveys are generally conducted, including
variable ambient and equipment temperatures, complex backgrounds, and
elevated wind speeds. Additionally, the compounds that can be detected
by an OGI camera are limited to the compounds that have a peak in the
spectral range of the filter on the OGI camera (generally around 3.2-
3.4 micron for cameras used to detect hydrocarbons). While many
compounds of interest do have a peak in this range, the variety of
chemicals found at SOCMI facilities is very broad, and not all of these
chemicals can be observed with an OGI camera. For example, ethylene and
acetaldehyde have very weak peaks in the spectral range common to OGI
camera filters, making it extremely difficult to see these compounds
with an OGI camera. For those compounds that can be observed with an
OGI camera, the detection range of the camera varies, and some
compounds must be emitted in high quantities before being observed. For
example, it is expected that twice as much styrene must be emitted as
xylene (any isomer) before the emissions are visible with an OGI
camera.\52\ For these reasons, the use of OGI is not appropriate for
the SOCMI source category.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Technical Support Document, Optical Gas Imaging
Protocol (40 CFR part 60, Appendix K), September 2023 for more
information related to detection of compounds with OGI.
\53\ In contrast, the majority of VOC emissions at onshore
natural gas processing plants are expected to be comprised of
compounds such as butane, pentane, hexane, benzene, toluene,
xylenes, and ethylbenzene; the type of compounds emitted are
expected to be fairly uniform from all onshore natural gas
processing plants. In addition to VOC, leaks at onshore natural gas
processing plants generally contain methane. All of these compounds
can be identified with an OGI camera. For this reason, OGI is
effective in detecting leaks from onshore natural gas processing
plants, as the commenter observes, but may not be effective for
certain SOCMI process units, where makeup of VOC emissions varies
widely across the source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding LDSNs, which use an array of continuous sensors to find
leaks, we agree that these systems can effectively be used to trigger
and target EPA Method 21 or OGI monitoring and leak repair, but an
effective system depends on the sensitivity of the sensors, the spacing
of the sensors, and the trigger used to deploy a ground monitoring
crew. It is difficult to develop vendor-agnostic monitoring
requirements that can be incorporated generically within a rule, and we
do not have the necessary information to do so at this time. While we
are continuing to look at how to develop a standardized approach for
sensor networks, we are not prepared to include provisions for a
continuous sensor network for the SOCMI source category at this time.
However, owners or operators can elect to submit a request for an
alternative means of emission limitation for using a site-specific
sensor network monitoring plan.
Finally, the commenter claims that the EPA must evaluate options
that we had previously considered while promulgating NSPS subpart VVa
in 2007. The EPA does not have information, nor has the commenter
provided any, indicating that there has been development since the last
review to any such previously rejected option that warrants evaluation
in the present review.
Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA's focus on lowering the
leak definition for valves from 500 ppm to 100 ppm is inconsistent with
recent EPA focus on targeting large emissions sources, as was done for
the oil and gas industry. The commenter stated that rulemaking targeted
finding large leaks faster, while in the review for NSPS subpart VVa,
the EPA focused on reducing a small population of small leaks by
lowering the leak definition for valves from 500 ppm to 100 ppm. The
commenter added that the EPA's analysis for NSPS subpart VVa
demonstrates this proposed change only results in reducing 0.64 tpy of
VOC emissions per affected facility beyond the baseline. The commenter
also stated that the facility-level leak inspection data that the EPA
has available shows that leaks between 100 ppm and 500 ppm are not very
common. The commenter specified that the EPA has access to at least one
data set containing leak inspection results for nearly 3,000 components
at a chemical manufacturing facility. The commenter added that the
average EPA Method 21 reading was over 25,000 ppm, with the minimum
reading for valves was 747 ppm and minimum reading for connectors was
1,000 ppm, underscoring the importance of entirely preventing
significant leaks (as well as quickly identifying and remediating
others). The commenter recommended, in addition to strengthening the
standards as it has proposed, that the EPA evaluate the use of
additional technology, such as low emission valves and valve packing
and connectors less likely to leak, in order to prevent the presence of
these large emissions. The commenter concluded that this evaluation
would allow the EPA to take action on preventing emissions from
occurring at these high rates and potentially result in the
determination that a combined program of low-emissions technology with
regular EPA Method 21 monitoring and leak repairs is the BSER for SOCMI
equipment leaks.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the actions taken in this NSPS
rulemaking are inconsistent with the actions taken in other recent NSPS
rulemakings, specifically the oil and gas NSPS (see 89 FR 16820 (March
8, 2024)). The rulemaking for the oil and gas sector are focused on
finding large leaks faster while the leak regulation for SOCMI does
not, because there are key differences between the oil and gas and the
SOCMI source category. The SOCMI industry has been complying with
equipment leak regulations since the early 1980s, and leaks are
expected to be
[[Page 43015]]
much lower in SOCMI than for the oil and gas industry. As a result, the
leak definitions that SOCMI facilities must comply with are already
very low, 500 to 1000 ppm for most equipment, and the proposed and
final rule lowers leak definitions to 100 ppm for valves to gain even
more emissions reductions.
Additionally, the data set referenced by the commenter was
collected over several years. The chemical facility associated with the
data set conducted an OGI survey and then recorded the EPA Method 21
reading for any leaks found by OGI. However, the data set does not
include any information related to leaks that could have been found
with EPA Method 21 but not OGI. Therefore, the EPA cannot conclude that
there are few leaks between 100 ppm and 500 ppm at chemical plants
based on this data set. What this data set does demonstrate is that
there is no evidence that OGI can find low-level leaks at chemical
plants.
In the final rule (NSPS subpart VVb), we are not requiring specific
types of equipment be used to meet the 100 ppm leak definition for
valves. However, in order to meet the 100 ppm leak definition for
valves, we anticipate that facilities will need to use low-emission
valves or packings. The average cost-effectiveness (with recovery
credits) of lowering the leak definition for valves in gas/vapor or
light liquid service from 500 ppm to 100 ppm, is $2,780 per ton of VOC
reduced, and the EPA estimates this provision could result in
reductions of more than 20 tpy of VOC.
Comment: A commenter contended that the EPA's proposed definition
for capital expenditures in NSPS subpart VVb narrows the reach of
modification and would result in the exclusion of certain process units
from applicability to the subpart through modification. For NSPS
subpart VVb, the commenter opposed the two proposed calculations for
``X''. The commenter explained that by proposing a value for ``X'' to
be ``2023 minus the year of construction'' for sources with a
construction date after January 6, 1982 and before January 1, 2023, the
EPA has categorically exempted any process unit from ever becoming
subject to NSPS subpart VVb through modification if its date of
construction is prior to January 6, 1982. The commenter contended that
this error must be addressed in the final rule to not create a loophole
exempting the oldest of these SOCMI process units from ever becoming
subject to NSPS subpart VVb through modification. The commenter
suggested revising the value for ``X'' to mean ``2023 minus the year of
construction'' without the need to bookend this definition with
specific dates. The commenter added that the EPA should first evaluate
more recent developments on the definition of ``capital expenditure''
inclusion in the final NSPS subpart VVb. The commenter also opposed the
proposed change of ``X'' for sources constructed in the year 2023 in
order for X to not be equal to zero, which results in an equation that
cannot be solved. The commenter noted that the EPA has addressed this
same issue recently through specific changes to the definition of
capital expenditure promulgated in the technical amendments to NSPS
subpart OOOOa for equipment leaks at onshore natural gas processing
plants. The commenter explained that in those amendments, the EPA
revised the equation used to determine ``Y'' (the percent of
replacement costs) to remove the variable ``X'' (and logarithmic
function) and instead the EPA specifically defined ``Y'' as ``the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the date of construction divided by the
most recently available CPI of the date of the project, or ``CPIN/
CPIPD''. The commenter contended that at a minimum, the EPA must
consider this calculation of ``Y'' when defining ``capital
expenditure'' in NSPS subpart VVb and discuss why the use of the CPI-
based ratio is not appropriate for affected facilities before
finalizing the proposed definition with the appropriate revisions to
close loopholes.
Response: We agree with the commenter that in the proposed
definition of ``capital expenditure'' in NSPS subpart VVb, the value of
``X'' should not be bounded by the NSPS subpart VV date of January 6,
1982. We also agree with the commenter that we should update the
definition of ``capital expenditure'' to use the CPI in the equation
for ``Y'' in NSPS subpart VVb. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA
is finalizing the capital expenditure definition in NSPS subpart VVb to
state in part that the value of ``Y'' is calculated using the CPI of
the date of original construction of the process unit divided by the
most recently available CPI of the date of the project.
In the early 1980s, some facilities were having trouble determining
capital expenditure because records for costs were not available for
determining the original basis of the affected facility.\54\ The EPA
developed an alternative method to NSPS subpart A which enabled
companies to use replacement cost rather than original cost. In the
alternative method, an inflation index is applied to the replacement
cost to approximate the original cost basis of the affected facility.
The relationship between the replacement and original cost ultimately
ended up in the formulas contained in the definitions of ``capital
expenditure'' in NSPS subparts VV and VVa.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Pursuant to the NSPS subpart A definition of ``capital
expenditure'' companies would need to know the original cost of the
affected facility to determine capital expenditure.
\55\ See Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-450/3-83-015B, Petroleum
Fugitive Emissions--Background Information For Promulgated Standards
at 4-3 to 4-7 (Oct. 1983), which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The formulas for ``Y'' in the definitions of ``capital
expenditure'' in NSPS subparts VV and VVa were intended to adjust the
replacement cost for inflation to approximate the original cost basis;
however, the formulas were based on analysis of inflation between the
years 1947 and 1982 and do not necessarily reflect current economic
conditions. In the 2020 amendments to NSPS subpart OOOOa, which covers
the oil and natural gas sector, the EPA determined that using a CPI-
based ratio is more appropriate under current economic conditions.\56\
Similarly, the EPA has determined the CPI-based ratio better reflects
the inflation of chemical process facility construction costs over time
and thus is more appropriate for use in determining capital expenditure
for the SOCMI source category in NSPS subpart VVb. There are several
versions of the CPI published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics;
for simplicity, the EPA is requiring the use of ``CPI-U, U.S. city
average, all items'' (CPI for all urban consumers) for both CPI values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0483-2291, EPA Responses to Public Comments on Reconsideration of
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources
Reconsideration 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa at 11-2 (Sep. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the technology review and NSPS review?
a. NESHAP
Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the previous technology reviews for the HON and the
P&R I and P&R II NESHAP were promulgated (see 71 FR 76603, December 21,
2006; 73 FR 76220, December 16, 2008; and 77 FR 22566, April 21, 2011
for additional details). Specifically, we focused our technology review
on all existing MACT standards for the various emission sources in the
SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R
[[Page 43016]]
II source categories, including, heat exchange systems, storage
vessels, process vents, transfer racks, wastewater, and equipment
leaks. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also proposed a fenceline
monitoring work practice standard requiring owners and operators to
monitor for any of six specific HAP (i.e., benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, EtO, and chloroprene) if their
site uses, produces, stores, or emits any of them, and conduct root
cause analysis and corrective action upon exceeding the annual average
concentration action level set forth for each HAP. In the proposal, we
identified cost-effective developments only for HON and P&R I heat
exchange systems, storage vessels, and process vents, and we proposed
to revise the standards for these three emissions sources under the
technology review. We did not identify developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies (beyond the fenceline monitoring
work practice standard) for transfer racks, wastewater, and equipment
leaks. Further information regarding the technology review can be found
in the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) and in the
supporting materials in the rulemaking docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0730.
During the public comment period, we received several comments on
our proposed determinations for the technology review. The comments and
our specific responses and rationale for our final decisions can be
found in section IV.B.3 of this preamble and in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance
Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking. No information presented by commenters has led us to change
our proposed determination under CAA section 112(d)(6) for transfer
racks, wastewater, and equipment leaks, and we are finalizing our
determination that no changes to these standards are warranted.
However, based on comments received on the proposed revisions for the
Group 1 HON and P&R I storage vessels, we are clarifying that the
capacity and MTVP thresholds in the final rule apply to both new and
existing sources. In addition, some additional cost information was
submitted by commenters on the proposed revisions for HON process vents
and P&R I continuous front-end process vents. Based on these comments,
we have updated our cost analysis, but continue to believe our
revisions for HON process vents and P&R I continuous front-end process
vents, as proposed, are still cost-effective. Therefore, for HON
process vents and P&R I continuous front-end process vents, we are
finalizing, as proposed the: (1) Removal of the TRE concept in its
entirety; (2) removal of the 50 ppmv and 0.005 scmm Group 1 process
vent thresholds; and (3) redefining of a Group 1 process vent (require
control) as any process vent that emits >=1.0 lb/hr of total organic
HAP. Finally, based on comments received on the proposed fenceline
monitoring requirements, we have established two action levels in the
final rule for chloroprene (i.e., one action level under CAA section
112(d)(6) for this HAP and another action level under CAA section
112(f)) in lieu of only one action level, as proposed). In addition,
based on comments received, we are: (1) Finalizing burden reduction
measures to allow owners and operators to skip fenceline measurement
periods for specific monitors with a history of measurements that are
at or below certain action levels; (2) clarifying that fenceline
monitoring is required for owners and operators with affected sources
that produce, store, or emit one or more of the target analytes; (3)
reducing the requirements for the minimum detection limit of
alternative measurement approaches; (4) clarifying how owners and
operators establish the monitoring perimeter for both sorbent tubes and
canisters; (5) clarifying the calculation of [Delta]c when a site-
specific monitoring plan is used to correct monitoring location
concentrations due to offsite impacts; (6) changing the required method
detection limit for alternative test methods from an order of magnitude
below the action level to one-third of the action level; and (4) with
the exception of fenceline monitoring of chloroprene at P&R I affected
sources producing neoprene, we are changing the compliance date in the
final rule to begin fenceline monitoring 2 years (instead of 1 year, as
proposed) after the effective date of the final rule. For P&R I
affected sources producing neoprene, we have changed the compliance
date for fenceline monitoring of chloroprene to begin no later than
October 15, 2024, or upon startup, whichever is later, subject to the
owner or operator seeking the EPA's authorization of an extension of up
to 2 years from July 15, 2024.
b. NSPS
For NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, we are finalizing the suite
of process vent requirements, as proposed.\57\ As described in the
proposal (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) and in consideration of comments
received about these new requirements (see section IV.B.3.b.i of this
preamble for further detail), we found the requirements to be cost-
effective for VOC emission reductions at new, modified, and
reconstructed affected facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See section IV.B.1.b.i of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NSPS subpart VVb, we are finalizing, as proposed, the same
requirements in NSPS subpart VVa with the updated requirement that all
gas/vapor and light liquid valves be monitored monthly at a leak
definition of 100 ppm instead of 500 ppm, and an additional requirement
that all connectors be monitored once every 12 months at a leak
definition of 500 ppm, as described in the proposal (88 FR 25080, April
25, 2023).
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) for
the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II Source Categories NESHAP
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and
112(h) for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories?
Under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed to amend the
operating and monitoring requirements for a subset of flares in the
SOCMI and P&R I source categories. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.108 (for
HON) and 40 CFR 63.508 (for the P&R I NESHAP) to directly apply the
petroleum refinery flare rule requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC, to the HON and P&R I flares with clarifications, including, but not
limited to, specifying that several definitions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC, that apply to petroleum refinery flares also apply to the
flares in the specified subset, adding a definition and requirements
for pressure-assisted multi-point flares, and specifying additional
requirements when a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer is used for
compositional analysis. Specifically, we proposed to retain the General
Provisions requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b) and 40 CFR 60.18(b) such
that HON and P&R I flares operate pilot flame systems continuously and
that these flares operate with no visible emissions (except for periods
not to
[[Page 43017]]
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours) when the
flare vent gas flow rate is below the smokeless capacity of the flare.
We also proposed to consolidate measures related to flare tip velocity
and new operational and monitoring requirements related to the
combustion zone gas for HON and P&R I flares. Further, in keeping with
the elimination of the SSM exemption, we proposed a work practice
standard related to the visible emissions limits during periods when a
HON or P&R I flare is operated above its smokeless capacity (e.g.,
periods of emergency flaring). We proposed eliminating the cross-
references to the General Provisions and instead specifying all
operational and monitoring requirements that are intended to apply to
HON and P&R I flares in the applicable subparts.
In addition, we proposed provisions and clarifications in the HON
and P&R I and P&R II NESHAP for periods of SSM and bypasses, including
PRD releases, bypass lines on closed vent systems, maintenance vents
and equipment openings, storage vessel degassing, and planned routine
maintenance for storage vessels to ensure that CAA section 112
standards apply continuously, consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.
3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
For PRD releases, we proposed revisions to the definition of
``pressure relief device'' for the HON and P&R I NESHAP, a definition
of ``relief valve'' for the HON and P&R I NESHAP, and a definition in
the P&R II NESHAP for ``pressure relief device.'' Under CAA section
112(h), we proposed a work practice standard for PRDs at 40 CFR
63.165(e) (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.502(a)(1) and (a)(2) (which
references 40 CFR 63.165, for the P&R I NESHAP) that consists of using
at least three prevention measures and performing root cause analysis
and corrective action in the event that a PRD does release emissions
directly to the atmosphere.\58\ (Examples of prevention measures
include flow indicators, level indicators, temperature indicators,
pressure indicators, routine inspection and maintenance programs or
operator training, inherently safer designs or safety instrumentation
systems, deluge systems, and staged relief systems where the initial
PRD discharges to a control system.) We proposed that PRDs in EtO
service (for HON) and PRDs in chloroprene service (for Neoprene
Production processes subject to the P&R I NESHAP) may not vent directly
to atmosphere. We also proposed to require that sources monitor PRDs
that vent to atmosphere using a system that is capable of identifying
and recording the time and duration of each pressure release and of
notifying operators that a pressure release has occurred. We proposed
at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(4) that PRDs that vent through a closed vent system
to a control device or to a process, fuel gas system, or drain system
must meet minimum requirements for the applicable control system. In
addition, we proposed at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(5) that the following types
of PRDs would not be subject to the work practice standard for PRDs
that vent to the atmosphere: (1) PRDs in heavy liquid service; (2) PRDs
that are designed solely to release due to liquid thermal expansion;
(3) PRDs on mobile equipment; and (4) pilot-operated and balanced
bellows PRDs if the primary release valve associated with the PRD is
vented through a control system. Finally, we proposed at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(8) to require future installation and operation of non-
flowing pilot-operated PRDs at all affected sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The P&R II NESHAP is different from the HON and the P&R I
NESHAP because the P&R II NESHAP defines a process vent as a ``a
point of emission from a unit operation. Typical process vents
include condenser vents, vacuum pumps, steam ejectors, and
atmospheric vents from reactors and other process vessels.'' As
such, the P&R II NESHAP does not exclude PRD releases from its
production-based emission rate MACT standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For bypass lines on closed vent systems, we proposed at 40 CFR
63.114(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.127(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.148(f)(4), and 40 CFR
63.172(j)(4) (for HON), and 40 CFR 63.485(x), 40 CFR 63.489(d)(3), and
40 CFR 63.502(a)(2) (for the P&R I NESHAP) that an owner or operator
may not bypass the APCD at any time, that a bypass is a violation (at
40 CFR 63.118(a)(5) and (f)(7), 40 CFR 63.130(a)(2)(iv), (b)(3), and
(d)(7), 40 CFR 63.148(i)(3)(iii) and (j)(4), Tables 3, 7, and 20 to 40
CFR 63, subpart G, 40 CFR 63.181(g)(3)(iii), and 40 CFR 63.182(d)(xix)
(for HON), and 40 CFR 63.485(x), 40 CFR 63.489(d)(3), and 40 CFR
63.502(a)(2) (for the P&R I NESHAP)), and the owner or operator must
estimate and report the quantity of organic HAP released.
Under CAA section 112(h), we proposed a work practice standard for
maintenance vents and equipment openings at 40 CFR 63.113(k)(1)(i) (for
HON), and at 40 CFR 63.485(x) and 40 CFR 63.487(i)(1)(i) (for the P&R I
NESHAP) requiring that, prior to opening process equipment to the
atmosphere, the equipment must either (1) be drained and purged to a
closed system so that the hydrocarbon content is less than or equal to
10 percent of the LEL; (2) be opened and vented to the atmosphere only
if the 10-percent LEL cannot be demonstrated and the pressure is less
than or equal to 5 psig, provided there is no active purging of the
equipment to the atmosphere until the LEL criterion is met; (3) be
opened when there is less than 50 lbs of VOC that may be emitted to the
atmosphere; or (4) for installing or removing an equipment blind,
depressurize the equipment to 2 psig or less and maintain pressure of
the equipment where purge gas enters the equipment at or below 2 psig
during the blind flange installation, provided none of the other
proposed work practice standards can be met.
Also under CAA section 112(h), we proposed a work practice standard
for storage vessel degassing at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) (for HON) and 40
CFR 63.484(a) and (t) (which references 40 CFR 63.119, for the P&R I
NESHAP) to allow storage vessels to be vented to the atmosphere once a
storage vessel degassing concentration threshold is met (i.e., once the
vapor space concentration is less than 10 percent of the LEL) and all
standing liquid has been removed from the vessel to the extent
practicable. In addition, we proposed at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(7) that
owners and operators would not be permitted to fill the storage vessel
during these periods (such that the vessel would emit HAP to the
atmosphere for a limited amount of time due to breathing losses only).
To address regulatory gaps, we proposed:
Emission limits for dioxins and furans at 40 CFR 63.113(a)(5) (for
HON), 40 CFR 63.485(x) and 40 CFR 63.487(a)(3) and (b)(3) (for the P&R
I NESHAP), and 40 CFR 63.523(e), 40 CFR 63.524(a)(3), and 40 CFR
63.524(b)(3) (for the P&R II NESHAP).
To define pressure vessel at 40 CFR 63.101 (for HON) and 40 CFR
63.482 (for the P&R I NESHAP) to mean ``a storage vessel that is used
to store liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere
as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure
vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity,''
and to remove the exemption for ``pressure vessels designed to operate
in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the
atmosphere'' from the definition of storage vessel. We proposed LDAR
requirements at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.484(t) (for
the P&R I NESHAP) requiring no detectable emissions at all times (i.e.,
would be required to meet a leak definition of 500 ppm at each point on
the pressure vessel where total
[[Page 43018]]
organic HAP could potentially be emitted); initial and annual leak
monitoring using EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7; and
routing organic HAP through a closed vent system to a control device
(i.e., no releases to the atmosphere through a pressure vessel's PRD).
A requirement at 40 CFR 63.170(b) (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.485(d)
(for the P&R I NESHAP) that owners and operators of all surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers that emit greater than or equal to 1.0
lb/hr of total organic HAP would be required to reduce emissions of
organic HAP using a flare meeting the proposed operating and monitoring
requirements for flares; or reduce emissions of total organic HAP or
TOC by 98 percent by weight or to an exit concentration of 20 ppmv.
Removing the exemption for transfer operations that load ``at an
operating pressure greater than 204.9 kilopascals'' from the definition
of transfer operation at 40 CFR 63.101 (for HON) such that owners and
operators would be required to equip each transfer rack with an
operating pressure greater than 204.9 kilopascals with a vapor
collection system and control device to reduce total organic HAP
emissions by 98 percent by weight or to an exit concentration of 20
ppmv.
Requirements at 40 CFR 63.523(d) (for BLR manufacturers subject to
the P&R II NESHAP) and 40 CFR 63.524(c) (for WSR manufacturers subject
to the P&R II NESHAP) that owners and operators of each affected source
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.104 for heat exchange
systems, including quarterly monitoring for existing and new heat
exchange systems (after an initial 6 months of monthly monitoring)
using the Modified El Paso Method and a leak definition of 6.2 ppmv of
total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the
stripping gas. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.104(j)(3) a delay of
repair action level of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as
methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv, that if exceeded during leak
monitoring, would require immediate repair (i.e., the leak found cannot
be put on delay of repair and would be required to be repaired within
30 days of the monitoring event). In addition, we proposed at 40 CFR
63.104(h) and (i) re-monitoring at the monitoring location where a leak
is identified to ensure that any leaks found are fixed. Finally, we
proposed that none of these requirements would apply to heat exchange
systems that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per
minute or less.
A requirement at 40 CFR 63.524(a)(3) and (b)(3) that owners and
operators of existing, new, or reconstructed affected WSR sources
subject to the P&R II NESHAP comply with both the equipment leak
standards in the HON and the HAP emissions limitation for process
vents, storage tanks, and wastewater systems (i.e., we proposed that
the alternative standard is no longer optional). For the P&R II NESHAP,
we also proposed to include valves in the definition of ``equipment
leaks'' at 40 CFR 63.522 such that owners and operators of an existing,
new, or reconstructed affected BLR or WSR source would be required to
comply with the same LDAR program that already exists in the HON and
the P&R I NESHAP for valves that contain or contact material that is 5
percent by weight or more of organic HAP, operate 300 hours per year or
more, and are not in vacuum service.
A requirement at 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7), that owners and operators
that use a sweep, purge, or inert blanket between the IFR and fixed
roof of a storage vessel would be required to route emissions through a
closed vent system and control device.
We proposed that all of these requirements (proposed for the
purpose of addressing regulatory gaps) are consistent with CAA section
112(d) controls and reflect the MACT floor, and we did not identify any
additional options beyond these (i.e., beyond-the-floor options) for
controlling emissions from these emission sources. More information
concerning our proposed requirements under CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) and 112(h) can be found in sections III.D and III.E of the proposal
preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
2. How did the revisions pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and
112(h) change since proposal?
The EPA is finalizing the work practice standard for storage vessel
degassing, as proposed, except that we are adding an option at 40 CFR
63.119(a)(6) to allow owners and operators to degas a storage vessel to
the atmosphere once a vapor space organic HAP concentration of less
than 5,000 ppmv as methane is met (in lieu of having to meet a vapor
space concentration threshold of less than 10 percent of the LEL). We
are also correcting our use of the term ``LEL'' versus our use of the
term ``concentration'' in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) in that ``the
concentration'' of the vapors in storage vessels be less than 10
percent of the LEL and that owners and operators are required to
measure ``the concentration'' of the vapors as a percent of the LEL. We
are also revising the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) to include
storage vessels in EtO service subject to 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5).
The EPA is finalizing the revisions to the work practice standard
for planned routine maintenance of storage vessels, as proposed, except
that we are clarifying in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(f)(3) that
the 240-hour planned routine maintenance provisions also apply for
breathing losses for fixed rood roof vessels routed to a fuel gas
system or to a process.
The EPA is finalizing the requirements for pressure vessels, as
proposed, except that we are: (1) Clarifying that the pressure vessel
requirements at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) only apply to pressure vessels that
are considered Group 1 storage vessels; (2) clarifying that if the
equipment is not a connector, gas/vapor or light liquid valve, light
liquid pump, or PRD in EtO service and the equipment is on a pressure
vessel located at a HON or P&R I facility, then that particular
equipment is not subject to HON subpart H, but rather the equipment is
subject to the pressure vessel requirements we proposed and are
finalizing in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7); (3) clarifying that unsafe and
difficult/inaccessible to monitor provisions in 40 CFR 63.168(h) and
(i) (for valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service) and
in 40 CFR 63.174(f) and (h) (for connectors in gas/vapor service and in
light liquid service) still apply to valves and connectors when
complying with 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7); and (4) replacing the word
``deviation'' with ``violation'' in the final rule text at 40 CFR
63.119(a)(7).
The EPA is finalizing the requirements for surge control vessels
and bottoms receivers, as proposed, except that we are adding language
in the ``C'' and ``Q'' terms of the equations at 40 CFR
63.115(g)(3)(ii) and (g)(4)(iv) to allow the use of engineering
calculations to determine concentration or flow rate only in situations
where measurements cannot be taken with EPA reference methods. We are
also adding reference methods for measuring flow rate at 40 CFR
63.115(g)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.115(g)(4)(iv).
Also, we are clarifying in the final rule that the requirements for
sweep, purge, and inert blankets from IFRs at 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7)
applies only if a continuous sweep, purge, or inert blanket is used
between the IFR and fixed roof that causes a pressure/vacuum vent to
remain continuously open to the atmosphere where uncontrolled emissions
are greater than
[[Page 43019]]
or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total organic HAP.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposal revisions pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h), and what are our
responses?
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding our proposed revisions for periods of SSM,
including maintenance vents and equipment openings, storage vessel
degassing, planned routine maintenance of storage vessels, pressure
vessels, surge control vessels and bottoms receivers, and the
requirements for sweep, purge, and inert blankets from IFRs. Other
comment summaries and the EPA's responses for additional issues raised
regarding these activities, as well as issues raised regarding our
proposed revisions for flares, PRDs, bypass lines on closed vent
systems, emission limits for dioxins and furans, transfer operations
(for HON), heat exchange systems (for the P&R II NESHAP), and equipment
leaks (for the P&R II NESHAP) can be found in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance
Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
a. Maintenance Vents
Comment: Commenters contended that the EPA misuses the term LEL for
the maintenance vents and storage vessel degassing provisions. A
commenter said that the regulatory language implies that operators have
the ability to change the LEL of a vapor by purging or otherwise
removing portions of the vapor from equipment. This commenter said that
the concentration of a flammable gas or mixture can be lowered (e.g.,
by dilution or displacement) to a level that is less than the LEL;
thus, they requested that the EPA clarify that concentration of the
vapors in equipment be less than 10 percent of the LEL and that
facilities are to measure the vapor concentration, not the LEL.
Similarly, another commenter requested that the EPA clarify that the
concentration of the vapors in equipment and storage vessels be less
than 10 percent of the LEL and that facilities are to measure the
concentration of the vapors as a percent of the LEL (i.e., with a hand-
held analyzer that reports concentration as a percent of LEL, and not
the LEL itself). The commenter suggested that these changes should be
made to 40 CFR 63.113(k), 40 CFR 63.118(f) and (m), 40 CFR
63.119(a)(6), 40 CFR 63.486(i), 40 CFR 63.491(h), and 40 CFR 63.492(g).
The commenter provided an example saying that in proposed 40 CFR
63.119(a)(6), the second instance of ``LEL'' should be corrected to
read ``The owner or operator must determine the concentration using
process instrumentation or portable measurement devices . . .''.
Response: We agree with the commenters that our proposed use of the
term LEL improperly implies that operators have the ability to change
the LEL of a vapor by purging or otherwise removing portions of the
vapor from equipment. In the final rule, we are revising 40 CFR
63.113(k)(1)(i) and (ii) and (k)(2), 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6), 40 CFR
63.118(f)(9)(iii) and (m)(2), (3), and (5), 40 CFR 63.486(i)(1)(i) and
(ii) and (i)(2), 40 CFR 63.491(h)(2), (3), and (5), and 40 CFR
63.492(g)(3) to clarify that ``the concentration'' of the vapors in
equipment and storage vessels be less than 10 percent of the LEL and
that facilities are to measure ``the concentration'' of the vapors as a
percent of the LEL.
b. Storage Vessel Degassing
Comment: Several commenters supported the proposed degassing
provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6). However, some commenters requested
the EPA also add a concentration limit as an alternative to LEL
measurements. The commenters explained that some nonflammable chemicals
do not exhibit an LEL, or through the use of an inert blanket, the
storage vessel atmosphere would not have an LEL, so owners and
operators of storage vessels under these conditions would be unable to
comply with the proposed 10 percent LEL threshold. These commenters
requested that the EPA allow the storage vessel to be opened after the
vapor space organic HAP content has been reduced below 5,000 ppmv,
based on the Agency's assertion that this level is equivalent to 10
percent of the LEL. A commenter pointed out that 5,000 ppmv as methane
equals 10 percent of the LEL for methane.
Response: We agree with commenters that some nonflammable chemicals
do not exhibit an LEL, or through the use of an inert blanket, the
storage vessel atmosphere would not have an LEL, so owners and
operators of storage vessels under these conditions would be unable to
comply with the proposed 10 percent LEL threshold. Therefore, we are
revising the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) to allow storage vessels
to be vented to the atmosphere once a storage vessel degassing organic
HAP concentration of 5,000 ppmv as methane is met, or until the vapor
space concentration is less than 10 percent of the LEL. We stated in
the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) that we
are aware of three regulations regarding storage vessel degassing, two
in the state of Texas and the third for the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) in California. Texas has degassing
provisions in the TAC and through permit conditions, while Rule 1149
contains the SCAQMD degassing provisions. The TAC requirements are the
least stringent and require control of degassing emissions until the
vapor space concentration is less than 35,000 ppmv as methane or 50
percent of the LEL. The Texas permit conditions require control of
degassing emissions until the vapor space concentration is less than 10
percent of the LEL or until the VOC concentration is less than 10,000
ppmv, and SCAQMD Rule 1149 requires control of degassing emissions
until the vapor space concentration is less than 5,000 ppmv as methane.
The Texas permit conditions requiring compliance with 10 percent of the
LEL and SCAQMD Rule 1149 control requirements are considered equivalent
because 5,000 ppmv as methane equals 10 percent of the LEL for methane.
Comment: A commenter remarked that the work practice standard
proposed in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) should not only apply to degassing
Group 1 storage vessels, but should also be applicable for degassing
storage vessels in EtO service. The commenter explained that a storage
vessel in EtO service (subject to 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5)) may also need to
be degassed during storage vessel shutdown operations, but the way the
proposed language is currently written, the storage vessel degassing
provisions only apply to storage vessels subject to 40 CFR 63.119(a)(1)
and (a)(2). The commenter requested the EPA amend the language in 40
CFR 63.119(a)(6) to include storage vessels in EtO service subject to
40 CFR 63.119(a)(5).
Response: It was not our intent to exclude storage vessels in EtO
service from the work practice standard in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6);
therefore, we are revising the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(6) to
include storage vessels in EtO service subject to 40 CFR 63.119(a)(5).
However, owners and operators are still prohibited from releasing more
than 1.0 ton of EtO from all maintenance vents combined in any
consecutive 12-month period at 40 CFR 63.113(k)(4). In other words, we
still
[[Page 43020]]
consider degassing a storage vessel a type of maintenance vent. As
stated in the final rule (as proposed), an owner or operator may
designate any vent stream as a maintenance vent if the vent is only
used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of
equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or
placed into service.
c. Planned Routine Maintenance for Storage Vessels
Comment: A commenter said they supported the proposed work practice
standard for periods of planned routine maintenance for storage vessels
including the proposed requirement that owners and operators would not
be permitted to fill storage vessels during these periods. However,
another commenter pointed out that the 240-hour planned routine
maintenance provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(f)(3) (for fixed rood roof
vessels routed to a fuel gas system or to a process) is inconsistent
with the parallel requirement at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(7) for fixed rood
roof vessels routed to a control device. The commenter requested the
EPA make 40 CFR 63.119(f)(3)(iii) no longer apply on or after the
compliance dates specified in 40 CFR 63.100(k)(10) and allow for, in a
new paragraph at 40 CFR 63.119(f)(3)(iv), the 240-hour planned routine
maintenance provisions for breathing losses for fixed rood roof vessels
routed to a fuel gas system or to a process. Citing page 25161 of the
preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), the
commenter contended that this recommended change for fixed rood roof
vessels routed to a fuel gas system or to a process would be consistent
with the proposed rule text at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(7) for fixed rood roof
vessels routed to a control device. The commenter added that their
recommendation is also similar to the approach that the EPA used in the
Organic Liquids Distribution MACT (NESHAP subpart EEEE) under 40 CFR
63.2378(d) and (e)(4). The commenter pointed out that the associated
recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 63.123(h) would also need to be
amended slightly to reference the new recommended paragraph at 40 CFR
63.119(f)(3)(iv).
Response: We agree with the commenter that the 240-hour planned
routine maintenance provisions should apply for breathing losses for
fixed rood roof vessels routed to a fuel gas system or to a process
given this would parallel the requirement at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(7).
Therefore, we are revising the final rule to sunset 40 CFR
63.119(f)(3)(iii) in accordance with the schedule specified in 40 CFR
63.100(k)(10), and to include a new paragraph at Sec.
63.119(f)(3)(iv). We are also revising the final rule at 40 CFR
63.123(h)(3) to reference ``Sec. 63.119(f)(3)(iv)'' instead of ``Sec.
63.119(f)(3)(iii).'' Additionally, we are revising 40 CFR 63.100(k)(10)
to reference ``Sec. 63.119(f)(3)(iv)'' as well as the introductory
text in 40 CFR 63.119(f)(3) to properly reference the new paragraph at
``Sec. 63.119(f)(3)(iv).'' The new paragraph at 40 CFR
63.119(f)(3)(iv) reads: ``For each source as defined in Sec. 63.101,
beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.100(k)(10), paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, if you elect to route emissions from storage vessels to a fuel
gas system or to a process to comply with the requirements of paragraph
(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) of this section, the fuel gas system or
process may only be bypassed when the planned routine maintenance
cannot be performed during periods that storage vessel emissions are
vented to the fuel gas system or process, and 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 must not exceed 240 hours. The level of
material in the storage vessel shall not be increased during periods
that the fuel gas system or process is bypassed to perform routine
maintenance.''
d. Pressure Vessels
Comment: Some commenters requested that the EPA clarify what is
meant by the requirement to monitor ``each point on a pressure vessel
at Sec. 63.119(a)(7)(ii).'' These commenters contested that components
such as valves, pumps, and flanges servicing a pressure vessel and that
are already subject to LDAR program requirements should be excluded
from these provisions.
A commenter added that PRDs associated with pressure vessels should
be eligible to comply with the EPA's proposed PRD work practice
standards in 40 CFR 63.165(e) and a release of total organic HAP to the
atmosphere through a pressure vessel's PRD should not be considered a
deviation per 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7)(v). The commenter explained that PRDs
associated with larger pressure vessels, such a pressure sphere, are
typically designed for very rare scenarios like a fire protection case,
and thus venting flammable vapors vertically upward to the atmosphere
is a safety feature. The commenter said that many engineering design
issues will need to be evaluated before routing PRDs associated with
specific pressure vessels to a collection system and control device,
such as the potential for back-pressure on the collection header if
multiple pressure vessels are included, and the potential for rapidly
changing pressures and temperatures that may warrant special designs
for the collection header and emission control equipment.
Response: It was our intent that if the equipment is not a
connector, gas/vapor or light liquid valve, light liquid pump, or PRD
in EtO service and the equipment is on a pressure vessel located at a
HON or P&R I facility, then that particular equipment is not subject to
HON subpart H, but rather the equipment is subject to the pressure
vessel requirements we proposed and are finalizing in 40 CFR
63.119(a)(7). Connectors, gas/vapor or light liquid valves, light
liquid pumps, and PRDs in EtO service located on a pressure vessel at a
HON facility are still subject to HON subpart H; and we are clarifying
this in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7). As we stated in the
preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), the LDAR
requirements at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.484(t) (for
the P&R I NESHAP) are based on similar no-detectable emission
requirements required for closed vent systems in most chemical sector
NESHAP. The intent of this language is to impose a standard that
requires no detectable emissions at all times (i.e., would be required
to meet a leak definition of 500 ppm at each point on the pressure
vessel where total organic HAP could potentially be emitted); require
initial and annual leak monitoring using EPA Method 21; and require
routing organic HAP through a closed vent system to a control device
(i.e., no releases to the atmosphere through a pressure vessel's PRD).
Most pressure vessels have relief devices that allow for venting when
pressure exceeds setpoints. There are also instances where other
components in pressure systems may allow for fugitive releases because
of leaks from fittings or cooling systems.
We note that our use of the term ``deviation'' in the preamble to
the proposed rule and in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) was an error. While the
MON rule text uses the MON-defined term ``deviation'' to describe
emissions events, the current HON rule text uses the term
``violation.'' There are no uses of the term ``deviation'' to describe
an emissions event in the current HON rule text, nor any definition of
that term in the HON. Therefore, given that we are building off the
existing HON standards,
[[Page 43021]]
we believe it is more appropriate to continue to use the term
``violation'' (in lieu of the undefined term ``deviation'') in all of
the HON rule text. We have replaced ``deviation'' with ``violation'' in
the final rule text at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7).
Comment: Some commenters contended that the pressure vessel
monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) are not feasible for some
tanks because the pressure vessel is not accessible to monitoring
personnel. The commenter explained that some pressure vessels that
store regulated chemicals are located inside containment areas or are
partially buried such that monitoring of the vessel surface per EPA
Method 21 is not possible. The commenter added that some pressure
vessels are double walled tanks designed such that there is an
additional external shell outside of the pressure vessel shell (i.e., a
tank within a tank shell). The commenter suggested: (1) Pressure
monitoring of the gas space (typically nitrogen) between the pressure
vessel wall and the second exterior wall be conducted to detect a
potential leak, and if a pressure increase occurs, then the owner or
operator should be allowed to follow a work practice that requires that
the leak be repaired as soon as practical; and (2) for situations where
a pressure vessel is located inside a containment area or partially
buried, the owner or operator should only be required to conduct EPA
Method 21 monitoring on potential leak sources that are accessible and
are not unsafe-to-monitor. The commenter provided suggested rule text
edits in order to accommodate this request. Similarly, another
commenter suggested the EPA incorporate ``unsafe-to-monitor'' and
``inaccessible'' provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) similar to those in
other sections of NESHAP subpart H and in NESHAP subpart UU because
some pressure vessels are located in concrete containment areas, are
partially buried, or are otherwise inaccessible for safety purposes.
This commenter pointed out that the EPA did not consider costs for
facilities to relocate or install new pressure vessels to make them
accessible in order to comply with the proposed requirements.
Response: It was our intent that unsafe and difficult/inaccessible
to monitor provisions in 40 CFR 63.168(h) and (i) (for valves in gas/
vapor service and in light liquid service) and in 40 CFR 63.174(f) and
(h) (for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service)
still apply to valves and connectors when complying with 40 CFR
63.119(a)(7). We are clarifying this in the final rule at 40 CFR
63.119(a)(7)(ii).
Comment: A commenter pointed out that the proposed pressure vessel
requirements in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7) appear to apply to any pressure
vessel to which NESHAP subpart G applies. The commenter argued that
these requirements should only apply to Group 1 storage vessels that
are pressure vessels. The commenter explained that with the removal of
the pressure vessel exclusion from the storage vessel definition in 40
CFR 63.101 and the addition of the pressure vessel requirements in 40
CFR 63.119(a)(7), the EPA may have inadvertently applied the proposed
pressure vessel requirements to all pressure vessels, regardless of
whether the pressure vessel is Group 1 or Group 2 or whether the
storage vessel is exempt for another reason. The commenter contended
that there is no reason that a Group 2 storage vessel (i.e., one not
requiring control) or any other vessel that meets an exclusion in the
storage vessel definition should be subject to the proposed operating
standards for pressure vessels in 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7).
Response: We agree with the commenter that 40 CFR 63.119(a)(7)
should only apply to pressure vessels that are considered Group 1
storage vessels (as defined in Table 5 to NESHAP subpart G for existing
sources and Table 6 to NESHAP subpart G for new sources). Given that we
removed the exemption for ``pressure vessels designed to operate in
excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere''
from the definition of storage vessel in the final rule, all pressure
vessels (not just pressure vessels operating less than or equal to
204.9 kilopascals) are now considered storage vessels in the HON. For
this reason, we are clarifying in the final rule that ``for each
pressure vessel as defined in Sec. 63.101 that is considered a Group 1
storage vessel (as defined in Table 5 of this subpart for existing
sources and Table 6 of the subpart for new sources), you must operate
and maintain the pressure vessel'' as specified in paragraphs 40 CFR
63.119(a)(7)(i) through (v).
e. Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms Receivers
Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA clarify whether the
proposed threshold criteria for controlling surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers (i.e., the 1.0 lb/hr total organic HAP threshold) is
on an annual average basis or based on any intermittent emissions that
exceed the 1.0 lb/hr emission standard.
Response: As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR
25080, April 25, 2023), emissions from surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers are characteristic of process vents, not emissions
from storage vessels. Our rationale for making this determination is
that these vessels operate at process temperatures, not ambient storage
temperatures; typically do not undergo level changes that larger
storage vessels undergo; and are most often operated under pressure
with and without non-condensable gases flowing into and out of them.
The size of these vessels is also typically not correlated with
emissions, as are storage vessels. The 1.0 lb/hr total organic HAP
threshold is based on any continuous emissions that exceed the 1.0 lb/
hr emission standard. This is true for all Group 1 process vents. We
are finalizing this threshold as proposed given that we found this
threshold to be cost-effective for process vents (see our response to
comments in section IV.B.3.a.i of this preamble for further details).
Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA provide the option to
use engineering calculations if measurements cannot be made using EPA
reference methods to determine whether surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers are required to be controlled. The commenter said
that the vents from surge control vessels and bottoms receivers are
configured more like small tanks than process vents and that these
vents could be configured in a variety of ways. The commenter provided
an example where the vent may be configured as a pressure/vacuum vent
for which venting occurs on an intermittent basis, making it difficult
to measure volumetric flow rate since the measurements are not made
from a straight discharge pipe where the flow measurement device (e.g.,
a pitot tube) can be inserted.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that in certain
situations, as a result of how surge vessels and bottoms receivers are
configured, taking measurements utilizing EPA reference methods may not
be possible. As a result, we are finalizing language in the ``C'' and
``Q'' terms of the equations at 40 CFR 63.115(g)(3)(ii) and (g)(4)(iv)
allowing the use of engineering calculations to determine concentration
or flow rate only in situations where measurements cannot be taken with
EPA reference methods. We anticipate that in most situations, as
evidenced by one facility's responses to the CAA section 114 request,
facilities will be able to take measurements from surge vessels and
bottoms receivers as if they were process vents. In addition, the EPA
[[Page 43022]]
notes that while the commenter expressed concern about measuring flow
rate, the proposed reference methods (EPA Method 25A or EPA Method 18)
are utilized to measure concentration. Given it was the EPA's intent to
provide methodology for measuring both flow rate and concentration as
part of the proposal, we are adding reference methods for measuring
flow rate at 40 CFR 63.115(g)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.115(g)(4)(iv) by
adding the following text to the definition of, Q, the flow rate term
to remedy the lack of clarity: ``determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or
2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.''
f. Control of Sweep, Purge, and Inert Blankets From IFRs
Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed requirements
at 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7) that would require owners and operators that use
sweep, purge, or inert blankets between the IFR and fixed roof of
storage vessels to route emissions through a closed vent system and
control device. Some commenters explained that the EPA did not consider
the cost-effectiveness of controls under CAA section 112(d)(2) when
considering this proposal. A commenter said that most IFR storage
vessels are equipped with a sweep, purge, or blanket and the proposed
requirements would render these storage vessels obsolete, given that
facilities could remove the IFR and route all emissions to a control
device while remaining in compliance with the rule. The commenter
acknowledged that a continuous purge of an inert blanket will result in
higher emissions from an IFR than no purge; however, the commenter
added that IFR storage vessels are normally not designed to hold
pressure, and the space between the IFR and the fixed roof must vent
somewhere when the vessel is being filled, and conversely there must be
a mechanism to avoid a vacuum in the vessel when the vessel is being
emptied to prevent a vessel failure. To support their objection to the
proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7), the commenter provided a
cost analysis for this level of control that resulted in emissions
reductions of 0.1 lb/hr of HAP per vessel, which they estimated would
cost $190,000/yr to control and would not be cost-effective. Other
commenters agreed with this cost analysis and stated the cost would not
justify the additional amount of emissions reductions. These commenters
suggested the EPA revise their analysis, and if the proposed level of
control was found to be cost-effective, the commenters requested that
the EPA also consider the secondary emissions (i.e., CO,
NOX, and CO2) that would result from the
additional fuel required to treat a stream largely comprised of inert
gas. A commenter said that adding downstream abatement measures to IFR
vessels will require significant structural foundations to and from, or
between, as applicable, emission sources, air abatement controls,
utilities, and control systems for tanks already located at relatively
remote locations, making them more costly than otherwise similar
ancillary equipment at locations closer to manufacturing operations.
Finally, the commenter requested that the EPA clarify whether the
proposed requirements apply to all vessels with a sweep, purge, or
blanket, or only a subset, as vessels with IFRs are generally not
designed to hold pressure, and would need to vent to avoid negative
pressure. The commenter added that the space between the IFR and the
fixed roof must vent somewhere when the vessel is being filled and
conversely there must be a mechanism to avoid a vacuum in the tank when
the vessel is being emptied to prevent a tank failure.
Response: Installing a floating roof minimizes evaporative losses
of the stored liquid. Both contact and noncontact decks incorporate rim
seals and deck fittings to reduce evaporative loss of the stored
liquid. Evaporative losses from floating roofs may come from deck
fittings, nonwelded deck seams, and the annular space between the deck
and vessel wall. In addition, IFRs are freely vented by circulation
vents at the top of the fixed roof. The vents minimize the possibility
of organic vapor accumulation in the tank vapor space in concentrations
approaching the flammable range. An IFR vessel not freely vented is
considered an IFR vessel with a closed vent system. Sections 7.1.3 and
7.1.3.8.2 of EPA's AP-42, Fifth Edition,\59\ provide emission
estimation methods for freely vented IFR vessels and IFR vessels vented
only through a pressure/vacuum vent in the fixed roof (i.e., no open
vents), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42, Fifth Edition. Chapter 7:
Liquid Storage Tanks. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-volume-i-chapter-7-liquid-storage-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HON allows owners or operators to choose from different options
to control emissions from storage vessels and comply with the MACT
standards (i.e., owners and operators can use a closed vent system and
control device to reduce inlet emissions of total organic HAP by 95
percent or greater, or reduce organic HAP by utilizing a fixed roof and
IFR, an EFR, an EFR converted to an IFR, route the emissions to a
process or a fuel gas system, or vapor balance). As such, the use of a
floating roof that meets the requirements in 40 CFR 63.119(b) is one of
the control options owners or operators may choose for control of
emissions during normal storage vessel operations.
Section 7.1 of the EPA's AP-42, Fifth Edition suggests a default
reduction of 5 percent on total estimated emissions to account for the
use of closed vents on an IFR. This recommendation is based on API
Technical Report 2569 which we have determined assumes gas blanketing
or another method is used (for IFR vessels vented only through a
pressure/vacuum vent in the fixed roof) to prevent the development of a
combustible gas mixture within the vessel. However, we believe that
neither AP-42 or API Technical Report 2569 addresses the scenario where
the use of a sweep, purge, or inert blanket between the IFR and fixed
roof would cause a pressure/vacuum vent to remain continuously open to
the atmosphere; and this scenario was certainly not considered during
the development of the HON MACT standard for storage vessels. A
pressure/vacuum vent that remains continuously open to the atmosphere
while using a sweep, purge, or inert blanket between the IFR and fixed
roof is effectively a continuous process vent.
We note that in a 2021 site-specific monitoring plan submitted to
the EPA for approval for fenceline monitoring at a refinery located in
Corpus Christi, Texas (see Site-Specific Benzene Fenceline Monitoring
Plan Corpus Christi Refinery East Plant Revision 2, CITGO Petroleum
Corporation, December 1, 2021, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking), the company identified a slow rise in benzene
concentration over the course of about a year. During this period, the
company said they investigated the area for potential sources of the
elevated benzene concentrations and completed a root cause analysis
that identified a HON IFR storage vessel as the primary cause. The
particular HON IFR storage vessel uses a nitrogen blanket between the
IFR and the fixed roof to protect the storage contents from being
contaminated with oxygen. During the investigation, the company found
that the nitrogen regulator was malfunctioning which increased the
pressure within the tank and ultimately released emissions to the
atmosphere
[[Page 43023]]
(due to a small operating set point range for the nitrogen regulator
and relief vent). Ultimately, the company addressed the elevated
benzene concentrations by replacing the nitrogen regulator on the HON
IFR storage vessel and routing the emissions to a liquid scrubber,
carbon absorption system, and a vapor combustion unit. We have also
seen other companies acknowledge similar fenceline monitoring scenarios
where HON IFR storage vessels (with sweep, purge, or inert blanket
between the IFR and the fixed roof of the vessel) are contributing to
elevated benzene concentrations (see Site Specific Monitoring Plan,
ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery, September 27, 2019, which is available
in the docket for this rulemaking).
As such, we believe the use of a sweep, purge, or inert blanket
between the IFR and fixed roof that would cause a pressure/vacuum vent
to remain continuously open to the atmosphere is a regulatory gap.
Given that continuous sweeping, purging, or blanketing between the IFR
and the fixed roof of the vessel effectively creates a continuous
process vent, we proposed to address this regulatory gap pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), by requiring owners and operators that
use a sweep, purge, or inert blanket between the IFR and fixed roof of
a storage vessel to route emissions through a closed vent system and
control device (see 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7)). In light of the comments
received, we are clarifying in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.119(b)(7)
that owners and operators must route emissions through a closed vent
system and control device if they use a continuous sweep, purge, or
inert blanket between the IFR and fixed roof that causes a pressure/
vacuum vent to remain continuously open to the atmosphere where
uncontrolled emissions are greater than or equal to 1.0 lb/hr of total
organic HAP. This threshold is consistent with the definition we
proposed and are finalizing for Group 1 process vents. These
requirements are consistent with CAA section 112(d) controls and
reflect the MACT floor. With regard to cost, the MACT floor is the
minimum control level allowed for MACT standards promulgated under CAA
section 112(d)(3), not CAA section 112(d)(2), and may not be based on
cost considerations.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the revisions pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to revisions for flares used as APCDs, clarifications for periods of
SSM and bypasses, including PRDs, bypass lines on closed vent systems,
and planned routine maintenance of storage vessels, and requirements
for maintenance vents and equipment openings, storage vessel degassing,
emission limits for dioxins and furans, pressure vessels, surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers, sweep, purge, and inert blankets from
IFRs, transfer operations (for HON), heat exchange systems (for the P&R
II NESHAP), and equipment leaks (for the P&R II NESHAP). For the
reasons explained in section III.D of the proposal preamble (88 FR
25080, April 25, 2023), we find that the flare amendments are needed to
ensure that flares used as APCDs achieve the required level of MACT
control and meet 98-percent destruction efficiency at all times as well
as to ensure that CAA section 112 standards apply at all times.
Similarly, the clarifications for periods of SSM and bypasses,
including PRDs, bypass lines on closed vent systems, and planned
routine maintenance of storage vessels, and requirements for
maintenance vents and equipment openings, storage vessel degassing,
emission limits for dioxins and furans, pressure vessels, surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers, sweep, purge, and inert blankets from
IFRs, transfer operations (for HON), heat exchange systems (for the P&R
II NESHAP), and equipment leaks (for the P&R II NESHAP) are needed to
be consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
to ensure that CAA section 112 standards apply at all times. More
information and rationale concerning all the amendments we are
finalizing pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), in section
IV.C.3 of this preamble, and in the comments and our specific responses
to the comments in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. Therefore, we are
finalizing the proposed provisions for flares, finalizing the proposed
clarifications for periods of SSM and bypasses, including PRD releases,
bypass lines on closed vent systems, and planned routine maintenance of
storage vessels, and finalizing standards for maintenance vents and
equipment openings, storage vessel degassing, emission limits for
dioxins and furans, pressure vessels, surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers, sweep, purge, and inert blankets from IFRs, transfer
operations (for HON), heat exchange systems (for the P&R II NESHAP),
and equipment leaks (for the P&R II NESHAP).
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
We proposed amendments to the HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP
to remove and revise provisions related to startup, shutdown, and
maintenance (SSM) that are not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. In a few instances, we are finalizing
alternative standards for certain emission points (i.e., emergency
flaring, PRDs, maintenance activities, and tank degassing) to minimize
emissions during periods of SSM to ensure a continuous CAA section 112
standard applies ``at all times'' (see section IV.C of this preamble);
however for the majority of emission points in the SOCMI, P&R I, and
P&R II source categories, we proposed eliminating the SSM exemptions
and to have the emission standards apply at all times. We note that on
April 21, 2011 (see 77 FR 22566), the EPA finalized amendments to
eliminate the SSM exemption in the P&R I NESHAP; however, for
consistency with the SSM related amendments that we proposed for the
HON and P&R II NESHAP, we also proposed additional amendments to the
P&R I NESHAP related to the SSM exemption that were not addressed in
the April 21, 2011, P&R I rule. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in section III.E.1 of the proposal
preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
We also proposed to remove the affirmative defense provisions at 40
CFR 63.480(j)(4) (for the P&R I NESHAP) to comply with the holding in
NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014). More information
concerning the removal of the affirmative defense provisions is in
section III.E.2 of the proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
We proposed standards in the NSPS subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and
RRRa that apply at all times. For NSPS VVb, we proposed that the work
practice standards will apply at all times, including during SSM. For
NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, we proposed performance standards
and
[[Page 43024]]
work practice standards that will apply during periods of startup and
shutdown (including when maintenance and inspection activities are
being conducted). Although the NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR
60.8(c) contain an exemption from non-opacity standards, we proposed in
NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa specific requirements at 40 CFR 40
CFR 60.612a, 40 CFR 60.662a, and 40 CFR 60.702a, respectively, that
override the general provisions for SSM. Accordingly, we proposed NSPS
subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa would include standards that apply
at all times, including during periods of startup and shutdown.
2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed. We are also
finalizing, as proposed, the removal of the provisions to assert an
affirmative defense to civil penalties in the P&R I NESHAP at 40 CFR
63.480(j)(4). See 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are
our responses?
To ensure a continuous CAA section 112 standard applies ``at all
times'' (see section IV.C of this preamble), we are finalizing, as
proposed, the elimination of the SSM exemptions for the SOCMI, P&R I,
and P&R II source categories. To ensure a continuous CAA section 111
standard applies ``at all times,'' we are finalizing, as proposed, the
requirement that the standards in NSPS subparts VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and
RRRa ``apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction.'' We are also finalizing some alternative standards in
this final rule for certain emission points during periods of SSM. This
section provides summaries of and responses to the key comments
received regarding our proposed requirements for PRDs at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and smoking flares at 40 CFR
63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv) during malfunctions. Other comment summaries
and the EPA's responses for additional issues raised regarding other
SSM issues raised regarding our proposed revisions can be found in the
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
Comment: Several commenters generally supported removal of the SSM
exemptions in the rules given it is consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008). A commenter said that they agreed
with the approach the EPA has taken to amend language throughout the
HON to indicate which paragraphs or phrases no longer apply as a result
of the proposed SSM revisions.
Other commenters suggested that the EPA also close proposed
loopholes for releases from PRDs at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C)
and smoking flares at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv) during
malfunctions. Some of these commenters said that according to
facilities' self-reported data, SSM emissions are often of the same
magnitude as the facilities' reported routine emissions, and SSM
emissions tend to spike during severe weather events. A commenter
pointed out specific reportable quantities of emissions resulting from
unplanned emissions events and planned SSM activities via the State of
Texas Environmental Electronic Reporting System (STEERS). The
commenters argued that with the properly installed and executed
emission control systems, fail safes, backup power, maintenance
procedures and risk management plans, emissions associated with both
extreme weather and routine operations are preventable and should not
be exempted from legally permitted emission limits. The commenters
argued that the EPA erroneously concludes that the malfunction
loopholes at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and smoking flares at 40
CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv) are reasonable.
Commenters contended that these malfunction loopholes have real-
world, harmful effects on the health of communities surrounding these
facilities. The commenters pointed out that the EPA readily admits,
``[p]ressure relief events from PRDs that vent to the atmosphere have
the potential to emit large quantities of HAPs'' and the EPA also noted
that the majority of the Indorama Port Neches Plant's excess cancer
risk is ``driven by EtO emissions from PRDs (74 percent).'' A commenter
added that the EPA similarly found a ``high potential risk posed by
chloroprene from PRD releases.'' The commenter also argued that:
the PRD and smoking flare loopholes (at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv)) are
just another variation on the original malfunction exemption and the
affirmative defense to civil penalties, each of which the D.C. Circuit
has found unlawful under CAA sections 302(k), 304, 113, 112(d), and
112(f).
the EPA's creation of these exemptions (at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv)) runs
directly contrary to its own recognition in prior administrative
practice citing the EPA's brief defending the boiler rule.
even though the EPA included reporting and root cause
analysis requirements, the work practice standards still constitute a
total exemption from the core requirements for PRDs and flares during
malfunctions of unlimited HAP release in amount and duration (in other
words, there is no limit on the amount of HAPs emitted that applies
during those releases allowed at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and
40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv)); and the EPA attempted to justify its
original SSM exemption on similar grounds in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008), stating that reporting and other
requirements still applied, but that argument failed.
the PRD and flare loopholes (at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B)
and (C) and 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv)) are not lawful work
practice standards under CAA section 112(h); and even if the EPA could
set work practice standards, CAA section 112(h) does not allow the EPA
to avoid its obligation to enact standards that restrict emissions of
HAPs at all times.
the EPA has required and recognized the necessity of
control for HON, P&R I, and MON PRDs in EtO service, P&R I PRDs in
chloroprene service, and all Organic Liquid Distribution and P&R II
PRDs, but has not applied equal controls to other PRDs or to flares
above their smokeless capacity. This underscores the unlawfulness of
the exemptions (at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and 40 CFR
63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv)), and treating these releases so differently
is arbitrary and capricious.
Specifically, with regards to 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv),
several commenters said that smoking flares produce significant amounts
of `soot'; and beyond the health risks of particulate matter, smoking
flares increase production of ozone, especially in the presence of
greater environmental heat. A supporter of 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and
(iv) reiterated that the provisions are necessary because the EPA is
removing the SSM provisions. The commenter also said that they
supported the proposal to operate in accordance with a flare management
plan during periods when the flow to
[[Page 43025]]
the flare exceeds the smokeless capacity of the flare.
Other supporters of 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) argued that
there should be no limit on the number of PRD releases allowed to the
atmosphere. A commenter cited MACT standards, such as LDAR programs,
and contended that generally these programs do not limit the number of
leaks allowed. The commenter also added that if the EPA proceeded with
the proposed work practice standard, then they agreed with the EPA's
decision to allow one or two releases under the conditions set forth in
40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C). Commenters also requested that the
EPA clarify that the start date for the initial three-year period for
the limit on PRD releases to the atmosphere is the first full calendar
year after the compliance date for the PRD work practice standard. The
commenters further requested that the EPA include provisions that would
not count the second event from the same equipment and same root cause
within a 3-year period as a deviation where a) the root cause
investigation from the first incident is not yet complete; and/or b)
where the corrective action resulting from the root cause investigation
requires a capital expenditure and such has been initiated and is being
timely pursued.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for removing
the SSM exemptions in the rules. As we explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court determined that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under CAA section 302(k), emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. With
the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v. EPA, the exemption
language in 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) is null and void and any cross
reference to those provisions has no effect.
However, we disagree with other commenters suggesting that the EPA
created loopholes for releases from PRDs at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B)
and (C) and smoking flares at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv) during
malfunctions. At proposal, the EPA explained that ``[a]lthough no
statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions,
the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible.'' (88 FR 25167). We
further explained that ``[t]he EPA will consider whether circumstances
warrant setting work practice standards for a particular type of
malfunction in the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories, and, if
so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant
best performing sources and establish a standard for such
malfunctions.'' (88 FR 25168.) It is very difficult to guard perfectly
against acts of God and acts of terrorism. The EPA does not believe it
can develop measures that would effectively limit emissions during all
such acts.
Regardless, the PRD work practice standard requires redundant
prevention measures, which are designed to limit the duration and
quantity of releases from all atmospheric PRDs regardless of the cause.
Flares are required to comply with the requirements for a continuously
lit pilot flame and combustion efficiency standards (i.e., limits on
the NHVcz) at all times, including during periods of emergency flaring
caused by a force majeure event. These requirements apply at all times;
thus, the final work practice standards do have requirements that apply
to PRDs and flares at all times and they are not contrary to the CAA
requirements in CAA section 112. In addition, the work practice
standard for PRDs requires installation and operation of continuous
monitoring device(s) to identify when a PRD release has occurred. We
also note that facilities are required to initiate a root cause
analysis to assess the cause of a release, including releases
determined to be caused by a force majeure event. The count of events
at 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) and smoking flares at 40 CFR
63.670(o)(7)(ii) and (iv) includes events for which the root cause is
determined to be force majeure. In other words, there is no
categorization or interpretation related to the root cause of the
event; and the corrective action component of the work practice
standards applies to all events regardless of the root cause and all
events would count towards the violation criteria set forth in the
standard. We note that further comments on the concept of ``force
majeure'' and our responses to these comments can be found in section
7.2 of the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
We disagree with the comments regarding the exemptions being
arbitrary and capricious. We modeled the applicability of the PRD
provisions after the SCAQMD rule, based on a MACT floor analysis and
considering the appropriate requirements for these types of PRDs. With
regard to PRDs in EtO or chloroprene service, we stated in the preamble
to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) that any release
event from a PRD in EtO (from the SOCMI source category) or chloroprene
service (from the Neoprene Production source category) is a violation
of the standard in order to help reduce risk from these source
categories to an acceptable level.
With regard to the request that we clarify the start date for the
work practice standards, the regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.165(e)(3)(iv), 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(B) and (C) (for PRDs) and at
40 CFR 63.670(o)(7(ii) and (iv) (for smoking flares), states that the
time period is based on a 3-calendar-year period. We consider 2023 to
be 1 calendar year. A 3-calendar-year period in 2023 would include
events that occurred in 2021, 2022, and 2023. It is a rolling average
to the extent that, in 2024, one would consider events that occurred in
2022, 2023, and 2024. As indicated in 40 CFR 63.182(d)(2)(xviii)(C),
each pressure release to the atmosphere, including the duration of the
release, the estimated quantity of each organic HAP released, and the
results of the root cause analysis and corrective action analysis
completed during the reporting period must be included as part of the
reporting obligation. We disagree with the comment regarding meeting
certain criteria and not counting the second event from the same
equipment and same root cause as a deviation. First, we want to clarify
that we mean violation, not deviation. Our use of the term
``deviation'' in the preamble to the proposed rule was an error
(however, we did use ``violation'' in the proposed rule text in 40 CFR
63.165). While the MON rule text uses the MON-defined term
``deviation'' to describe emissions events, the current (and proposed)
HON rule text uses the term ``violation.'' There are no uses of the
term ``deviation'' to describe an emissions event in the current HON
rule text, nor any definition in the HON of that term. Therefore, given
that we are building off the existing HON standards, we believe it is
more appropriate to continue to use the term ``violation'' (in lieu of
the undefined ``deviation'') in all of the HON rule text. Second, at
proposal, we
[[Page 43026]]
explained that two release events with the same root cause from a
single PRD in a 3-year period is a violation from the MACT standard. 88
FR 25157. The commenter requested that if a corrective action has not
been implemented to resolve an issue, then related PRD releases should
not be counted towards the violation; however, this result is exactly
what the EPA wants to prevent by having a lower release threshold for
violations when a PRD release results from the same root cause.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
address emissions during periods of SSM?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule
(88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), we determined that these amendments,
which remove and revise provisions related to SSM, are necessary to be
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times.
More information concerning the amendments we are finalizing for SSM is
in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023) and
in the comments and our specific responses to the comments in the
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for the SSM
provisions as proposed.
E. Amendments Addressing NSPS Subparts VV and VVa Reconsideration
1. What amendments did we propose to address the NSPS subparts VV and
VVa reconsideration?
In response to the January 2008 petition for reconsideration, we
proposed: (1) Definitions for ``process unit'' for NSPS subparts VV and
VVa that are the same or essentially the same \60\ as the definition of
``process unit'' that was first promulgated in NSPS subpart VV (see 48
FR 48307, October 18, 1983) and that applied during the stay of the
2007 amendments to this definition in both NSPS subparts VV and VVa;
(2) to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 60.482-1(g) (for NSPS subpart
VV) and 40 CFR 60.482-1a(g) (for NSPS subpart VVa) that are related to
a method for assigning shared storage vessels to specific process
units; (3) to remove the connector monitoring provisions from NSPS
subpart VVa at 40 CFR 60.482-11a in their entirety; and (4) to revise
the ``capital expenditure'' definition in NSPS subpart VVa at 40 CFR
60.481a such that for owners or operators that start a new,
reconstructed, or modified affected source prior to November 16,
2007,\61\ the variable Y (i.e., the percent of a facility's replacement
cost used in determining an adjusted annual asset guideline repair
allowance) is determined from the following equation: Y = 1.0 - 0.575
log X, where the value of ``X'' is 1982; \62\ for owners or operators
that start a new, reconstructed, or modified affected source on or
after November 16, 2007,\63\ for which the NSPS subpart VVa definition
of ``capital expenditure'' was not stayed, we proposed to continue to
apply the definition in NSPS subpart VVa (i.e., the value of ``X'' is
2006 minus the year of construction).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The proposed ``process unit'' definition in NSPS subpart VV
is the same as that initially promogulated in NSPS subpart VV in
1983 (i.e., ``components assembled to produce, as intermediate or
final products, one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 60.489
of this part''). The proposed ``process unit'' definition in NSPS
subpart VVa is the same except that it refers to the chemicals
listed in Sec. 60.489a instead of Sec. 60.489.
\61\ As explained later in section IV.E.3 of this preamble, the
proposed definition erroneously refers to ``owners or operators that
start a new, reconstructed, or modified affected source prior to
November 16, 2007'' instead of sources that underwent physical or
operational change prior to November 16, 2007 (but after November 7,
2006, the NSPS subpart VVa proposal date).
\62\ ``1982'' is the X value presented in our proposed
regulatory text. We note that in the preamble to the proposal, we
had expressed an intent to define ``X'' as ``1982 minus the year of
construction,'' which reflects the equation for Y in the definition
in NSPS subpart VV at 40 CFR 60.481 and which applied during the
stay of the ``capital expenditure'' definition in NSPS subpart VVa.
See 40 CFR 60.480a(f)(1) (``Stay of standards'').
\63\ As explained later in section IV.E.3 of this preamble, the
proposed definition erroneously refers to ``owners or operators that
start a new, reconstructed, or modified affected source on or after
November 16, 2007'' instead of sources that underwent physical or
operational change on or after November 16, 2007.
\64\ See the document titled Proposed Regulation Edits for 40
CFR part 60 Subparts VV, VVa, and VVb: Standards of Performance for
Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0067).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How did the revisions addressing the NSPS subparts VV and VVa
reconsideration change since proposal?
We are finalizing the changes described in section IV.E.1 of this
preamble as proposed, except for certain changes related to the
``capital expenditure'' definition in NSPS subpart VVa. For NSPS
subpart VVa, we are finalizing the ``capital expenditure'' definition
in NSPS subpart VVa in place during the stay of the definition for
facilities that underwent a physical or operational change prior to
November 16, 2007. We recognize, depending on the year a modification
took place, this definition may potentially leave an indeterminant
outcome (e.g., log (X) where X is a negative value) for calculation of
the adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance. However, to the
extent there were sources that encountered this scenario (where a
physical or operational change between November 7, 2006 and November
16, 2007 triggered an evaluation of whether the capital expenditure was
above the threshold to be considered a modification), the NSPS subpart
VVa applicability determination would have been resolved a long time
ago; thus, finalizing the same definition as applied during the stay
would avoid upending any long-standing determinations. Therefore, in
the final rule, we are finalizing the definition that was in place
during the stay, which include correcting several errors made in our
proposed definition and noted by commenters. Specifically, the proposed
definition erroneously attached the value of ``X'' in the percent Y
equation to the date of construction, reconstruction, and modification
(as opposed to date of physical or operational change); in the final
rule, we have replaced that phrasing with a reference to physical and
operation change. In addition, we revised the value of ``X'' from
``1982'' to ``1982 minus the year of construction.'' Accordingly, in
the final rule, we are revising the ``capital expenditure'' definition
in NSPS subpart VVa at 40 CFR 60.481a such that for owners or operators
that made a physical or operational change to their existing facility
prior to November 16, 2007, the percent Y is determined from the
following equation: Y = 1.0 - 0.575 log X, where the value of ``X'' is
1982 minus the year of construction; for owners or operators that made
a physical or operational change to their existing facility on or after
November 16, 2007, the percent Y is determined from the following
equation: Y = 1.0 - 0.575 log X, where the value of ``X'' is 2006 minus
the year of construction.
3. What key comments did we receive on the revisions addressing the
NSPS subparts VV and VVa reconsideration and what are our responses?
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding our proposed requirements for connectors
and
[[Page 43027]]
proposed revisions to the requirements in NSPS subpart VVa for capital
expenditure. Except for these comments related to the proposed
requirements for connectors and capital expenditure, we did not receive
many substantive comments on the other amendments related the NSPS
subparts VV and VVa reconsideration. The comments we received regarding
other amendments generally include issues related to the definition of
``process unit.'' The comments and our specific responses to these
issues can be found in the document titled Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Comment: A commenter objected to the EPA removing the connector
monitoring provisions from NSPS subpart VVa and only proposing them in
NSPS subpart VVb. The commenter contended that the EPA did not provide
sufficient justification for this change, given that the EPA's
rationale was only that they agreed with Petitioners that it had not
included those requirements in the November 7, 2006, proposal (72 FR
64860) but then established connector monitoring requirements in the
November 16, 2007 final rule without notice and an opportunity to
comment. The commenter added that the EPA must also justify why it is
not appropriate to lift the stay and require connector monitoring at
sources subject to NSPS subpart VVa from this point forward. The
commenter listed several issues with the EPA's decision:
The EPA must propose and provide opportunity for comment
on requiring connector monitoring at sources subject to NSPS subpart
VVa. The basis of the reconsideration was a lack of notice and comment,
and the EPA is currently in the position to provide an opportunity for
comment on those requirements yet fails to do so with no explanation.
The EPA must justify why additional emissions reductions
for sources subject to NSPS subpart VVa are no longer appropriate
before simply removing the requirements in their entirety. The EPA
found connector monitoring as the ``best system of emission reduction''
in the November 16, 2007, preamble, and the EPA has not explained why
that determination was inappropriate or no longer valid. In EPA's
analysis supporting the final NSPS subpart VVa, it found that the
promulgated connector monitoring requirements were: (1) Common practice
at many chemical manufacturing facilities, including through
regulations such as HON, MON, Ethylene MACT, and the Generic MACT (40
CFR 63, subpart UU), (2) resulted in greater emission reductions (230
tpy VOC) than the changes the EPA implemented for pumps and valves (94
tpy VOC) in NSPS subpart VVa, and (3) were achieved at a cost $2,500
per ton of VOC reduced.
The EPA must justify why the same requirements it is
proposing to remove from NSPS subpart VVa are only appropriate for NSPS
subpart VVb.
The commenter asserted that the EPA can and must lift the stay as
it relates to connector monitoring in 40 CFR 60.482-11a and require
compliance with that section from that date forward in order to ensure
the critical (and cost-effective) environmental protections are
implemented, while avoiding concerns of retroactive application of
standards. The EPA could do this through providing language that the
standards were stayed from June 2, 2008, until the date of the final
rule, but are in effect moving forward.
Response: As previously discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), we proposed to remove the connector
monitoring requirements in NSPS subpart VVa that have been stayed since
2008. The EPA disagrees with the comment that, having granted
reconsideration of these requirements because they were finalized
without proposal and an opportunity for comment, the EPA must now
propose to remove the stay and provide the public an opportunity to
comment on the connector requirements. While CAA section 307(d)(7)(B)
requires that the EPA grant reconsideration in this situation (where
the grounds for objecting to the standard arose after the period for
public comment, in this case when the final rule was promulgated),
nothing in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) or elsewhere in the CAA dictates
what actions the EPA must take in a reconsideration proceeding, much
less requiring that the EPA propose the connector requirements for
comment; nor has the commenter cited any legal authority requiring such
action from the EPA in an administrative reconsideration proceeding
under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
In its reconsideration of the connector requirements in NSPS
subpart VVa, the EPA took into account that these requirements have
been stayed since June 2008, over 15 years ago and shortly after the
promulgation of NSPS subpart VVa in November 2007. In light of the fact
that the connector requirements have not been part of NSPS subpart
VVa's long implementation history, the EPA does not think it is
appropriate to amend NSPS subpart VVa now to add a new requirement for
new equipment (i.e., connectors) for sources constructed, reconstructed
or modified between November 7, 2006 and April 26, 2023, which are
existing sources for purposes of the newly promulgated NSPS subpart
VVb. The EPA believes that standards for previously unregulated sources
such as the connectors are better suited moving forward for new and
modified sources under NSPS subpart VVb. For the reasons stated above,
the EPA is finalizing the removal of the connector requirements in NSPS
subpart VVa, as proposed.
Comment: Commenters requested the EPA correct the formula for
calculating the value of ``X'' in the definition of ``Capital
Expenditure'' in the proposed NSPS subpart VVa. A commenter explained
that the EPA proposed a value of ``1982'' for ``X'' for owners or
operators ``that start a new, reconstructed, or modified affected
source prior to November 16, 2007.'' The commenter contended that this
results in a negative value for ``Y'' (that is, -0.89, or 1.0-
0.575log(1982)), being effectively an indeterminant outcome for
calculation of the adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance.
Another commenter recommended that the EPA revise ``X'' from ``1982''
to ``1982--the year of construction'' for owners or operators ``that
start a new, reconstructed, or modified affected source prior to
November 16, 2007.''
Another commenter contended that the EPA's proposed definition for
capital expenditures in NSPS subpart VVa narrows the reach of
modification and would result in the exclusion of certain process units
from applicability to the subpart through modification. For NSPS
subpart VVa, the commenter contended the EPA has made significant
errors in defining how sources would determine if modification has
occurred and went beyond addressing the issues raised by the
petitioners requesting reconsideration of the capital expenditure
definition. The commenter asserted that it is inappropriate to include
a definition for modification related to a date of construction,
reconstruction, or modification that operates apart from the
applicability of the individual subpart. The commenter explained that a
source that is constructed or reconstructed after the applicability
date of the subpart (November 7, 2006, for NSPS subpart
[[Page 43028]]
VVa) is automatically subject to the standards of that subpart and
modification has no relevance unless a subpart with a later
applicability date is promulgated. The commenter added that a source is
not defined as modified unless it undergoes a physical or operational
change that results in an increase in emissions. The commenter
contended that a definition of capital expenditure that is reliant on
the dates of ``construction, reconstruction, or modification'' is not
relevant to and has no bearing on whether a source has been modified.
The commenter concluded that the EPA must redefine capital expenditure
without specifying construction, reconstruction, or modification dates.
The commenter recommended that the EPA should seek to address the
definition of capital expenditure as it applies to the subset of
physical and operational changes that occurred specifically between
November 7, 2006, and November 16, 2007. The commenter added that for
those sources that would have utilized the capital expenditure equation
in NSPS subpart VV, it is appropriate to define the value of ``X'' as
``1982 minus the year of construction'' or simply cross-reference the
capital expenditure definition at 40 CFR 60.481. The commenter stated
that the definition of capital expenditure as it relates to physical
and operational changes that take place after November 16, 2007 (the
promulgation date of NSPS subpart VVa), was not under reconsideration
and should remain as promulgated such that the EPA define ``X'' based
on the dates of ``physical or operational changes'' regardless of the
date of construction, reconstruction, or modification, and
specifically, for physical or operational changes that take place after
November 16, 2007, ``X'' should remain defined as ``2006 minus the year
of construction.''
Response: We agree that errors were made in the proposed ``capital
expenditure'' definition in NSPS subpart VVa. The proposed definition,
in relevant part, stated that
``(2) The percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y =
1.0 - 0.575 log X, where X is:
(i) 2006 minus the year of construction for owners or operators
that start a new, reconstructed, or modified affected source on or
after November 16, 2007, or
(ii) 1982 for owners or operators that start a new, reconstructed,
or modified affected source prior to November 16, 2007;''
We agree with the comment that the proposed definition erroneously
relies on a sources' construction, reconstruction, or modification date
for calculating capital expenditure to determine whether modification
has been triggered for that source. Sources constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after November 7, 2006, are affected facilities under
NSPS subpart VVa (i.e., they are subject to the standards of NSPS
subpart VVa); whether any such NSPS subpart VVa affected facility has
subsequently incurred capital expenditure that would constitute
``modification'' is irrelevant as the only purpose for that capital
expenditure calculation is to determine NSPS subpart VVa applicability,
which we already know it does. The commenter also correctly notes that
modification is determined by whether there is a physical or
operational change that results in an increase in emissions. See 40 CFR
60.2 and CAA section 111(a)(4). For the reasons stated above, in the
final rule, we have revised the proposed ``capital expenditure''
definition by referencing the date of a physical or operational change
to a source instead its construction, modification and reconstruction
date.
Regarding the value of ``X'' for owners and operators that made a
physical or operation change to their existing facility prior to
November 16, 2007, commenters are correct that the value of ``X'' being
1982 results in a negative value for the variable ``Y''; the proposed
regulation edits (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0067)
mistakenly required the value of ``X'' be 1982 instead of the intended
equation. The intended equation for ``X'' was 1982 minus the year of
construction; this equation was described in the proposal preamble (88
FR 25172) and aligns with the commenters' recommendation, which we
acknowledge could still result in a nonsensical value for the variable
``Y'' for certain scenarios. However, the impact of this issue is
unclear, as it would affect only sources that made a physical or
operational change within the relevant one-year period (after November
7, 2006 but before November 16, 2007). To the extent there were such
sources, we believe that they had long ago found ways to resolve the
issue and determine NSPS subpart VVa applicability, perhaps in
consultation with the relevant EPA region or delegated State agencies;
thus, finalizing the same definition as that which was in effect during
the relevant one-year period would avoid upending any such long-
standing resolutions or determinations by owners/operators and/or EPA
or delegated State agencies.
For the reasons described above, we are finalizing the equation for
calculating the variable ``Y'' in the definition of ``capital
expenditure'' in NSPS subpart VVa as follows:
(2) The percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y =
1.0 - 0.575 log X, where X is:
(i) 2006 minus the year of construction if the physical or
operational change to the existing facility was on or after November
16, 2007, or
(ii) 1982 minus the year of construction if the physical or
operational change to the existing facility was prior to November 16,
2007.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
address the NSPS subparts VV and VVa reconsideration?
The amendments address the following issues raised in the January
2008 petition for reconsideration: (1) The clarification of the
definition of process unit in NSPS subparts VV and VVa; (2) the
assignment of shared storage vessels to specific process units in NSPS
subparts VV and VVa; (3) the monitoring of connectors in NSPS subpart
VVa; and (4) the definition of capital expenditure in NSPS subpart VVa.
More information concerning the amendments we are finalizing to address
these issues is in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the
comments and our specific responses to the comments in the document
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
F. Other Amendments to the NESHAP and NSPS
1. What other amendments did we propose for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R
II source categories?
We proposed a requirement that owners or operators submit
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports, flare
management plans, and periodic reports (including fenceline monitoring
reports for HON and the P&R I NESHAP) through the EPA's CDX using the
CEDRI (at 40 CFR 63.108(e), 40 CFR 63.152(c) and (h), and 40 CFR
63.182(d) and (e) (for HON), 40 CFR 63.506(e)(6), and (i)(3) (for the
P&R I NESHAP), and 40 CFR 63.528(a) and (d) (for the P&R II NESHAP), 40
CFR 60.486(l), and 60.487(a) and (g) through (i) (for NSPS subpart VV),
40 CFR
[[Page 43029]]
60.486a(l), and 60.487a(a) and (g) through (i) (for NSPS subpart VVa),
40 CFR 60.486b(l), and 60.487b(a) and (g) through (i) (for NSPS subpart
VVb), 40 CFR 60.615(b), (j), (k), and (m) through (o) (for NSPS subpart
III), 40 CFR 60.615a(b), (h) through (l), and (n), and 40 CFR 619a(e)
(for NSPS subpart IIIa), 40 CFR 60.665(b), (l), (m), and (q) through
(s) (for NSPS subpart NNN), 40 CFR 60.665a(b), (h), (k) through (n),
and (p), and 40 CFR 669a(e) (for NSPS subpart NNNa), 40 CFR 60.705(b),
(l), (m), and (u) through (w) (for NSPS subpart RRR), and 40 CFR
60.705a(b), (k) through (o), and (v), and 40 CFR 709a(e) (for NSPS
subpart RRRa)). We also proposed two narrow circumstances in which
owners or operators may seek extensions to the deadline if they are
prevented from reporting by conditions outside of their control within
five business days of the reporting deadline. We proposed that an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports. We also proposed that an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an act of nature, act
of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
In addition, we proposed the restructuring of all HON definitions
from NESHAP subparts G and H (i.e., 40 CFR 63.111 and 40 CFR 63.161,
respectively) into the definition section of NESHAP subpart F (i.e., 40
CFR 63.101); and we proposed to consolidate differences between certain
definitions in these subparts.
We proposed adding monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
63.114(a)(5)(v), 40 CFR 63.120(d)(1)(iii), 40 CFR 63.127(b)(4), and 40
CFR 63.139(d)(5) (for HON), and 40 CFR 63.484(t), 40 CFR 63.485(x), and
40 CFR 63.489(b)(10) (for the P&R I NESHAP) for owners or operators
using adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and regenerative adsorbers
that are regenerated offsite. We also proposed that owners or operators
of this type of APCD use dual (two or more) adsorbent beds in series
and conduct monitoring of HAP or TOC on the outlet of the first
adsorber bed in series using a sample port and a portable analyzer or
chromatographic analysis.
In addition, we proposed several corrections to the calibration
drift assessment requirements in NSPS subpart VVa at 40 CFR
60.485a(b)(2) including: (1) Correcting a regulatory citation to read
``Sec. 60.486a(e)(8)'' instead of ``Sec. 60.486a(e)(7)''; (2)
removing the extraneous sentence ``Calculate the average algebraic
difference between the three meter readings and the most recent
readings and the most recent calibration value.''; (3) providing
clarity in the mathematical step of the assessment by replacing the
sentence ``Divide this algebraic difference by the initial calibration
value and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a
percentage.'' with ``Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial
and post-test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas
value for each scale and multiply by 100 to express the calibration
drift as a percentage.''; and (4) providing clarity by making other
minor textural changes to the provisions related to the procedures for
when a calibration drift assessment shows negative or positive drift of
more than 10 percent.
We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.103(b)(1) (for HON), 40 CFR 63.490(g)
and 40 CFR 63.504(a) (for the P&R I NESHAP), and 40 CFR 64.525(a), (e),
and (m) (for the P&R II NESHAP) that owners and operators would be
required to conduct subsequent performance testing on non-flare control
devices no later than 60 calendar months after the previous performance
test.
We also proposed to: (1) Remove the provisions at 40 CFR 63.110(h)
that allow compliance with certain portions of 40 CFR part 264, subpart
AA or CC in lieu of portions of NESHAP subpart G; and (2) remove the
provisions at 40 CFR 63.110(i) and 40 CFR 60.160(g) that allow
compliance with certain portions of 40 CFR part 65 in lieu of portions
of NESHAP subparts G and H.
Finally, we proposed revisions to clarify text or correct
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors.
These editorial corrections and clarifications are discussed in section
III.E.5.f of the proposal preamble (see 88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
2. How did the other amendments for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source
categories change since proposal?
Based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we are
making some changes to the amendments described in section IV.F.1 of
this preamble.
With regard to electronic reporting, we are making several minor
clarifying edits to the spreadsheet reporting templates (the final
versions of the templates will be located on the CEDRI website). We are
also making only minor changes to the HON definitions.
In addition, for adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and
regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite, we have clarified
the proposed rule text in this final action that the monitoring plan
provisions in 40 CFR 63.120(d)(2) and (3) do not apply to HON sources
subject to the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 63.120(d)(1)(iii); and
the monitoring plan provisions in 40 CFR 63.120(d)(2) and (3) do not
apply to P&R I sources subject to the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
63.120(d)(1)(iii) (via 40 CFR 63.484(t) and 40 CFR 63.485(x)).
With regard to overlap provisions, we are: (1) Revising 40 CFR
63.160(b)(1) and (c)(1) in the final rule such that compliance with HON
subpart H constitutes compliance with NSPS subpart VVa provided the
owner or operator continues to comply with 40 CFR 60.480a(e)(2)(i); and
(2) revising 40 CFR 63.160(b)(1) and (c)(1) in the final rule such that
compliance with HON subpart H constitutes compliance with NSPS subpart
VVb provided the owner or operator continues to comply with 40 CFR
60.480b(e)(2)(i). We have also revised 40 CFR 60.480b(e)(2)(i) in the
final rule to require compliance with 40 CFR 60.482-7b (i.e., the
standards for gas and light liquid valves in NSPS subpart VVb) in
addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.485b(d), (e), and (f), and 40
CFR 60.486b(i) and (j).
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the
SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source categories and what are our responses?
We did not receive many substantive comments on the other
amendments discussed in this section IV.F of this preamble. The
comments we received regarding other amendments generally include
issues related to electronic reporting, the restructuring of all HON
definitions, adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and regenerative
adsorbers that are regenerated offsite, overlap provisions, and
revisions that we proposed for clarifying text or correcting
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors.
The comments and our specific responses to these issues can be found in
the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New
Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
[[Page 43030]]
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions
regarding the other amendments for the SOCMI, P&R I, and P&R II source
categories?
Based on the comments received for these other amendments, we are
generally finalizing all proposed requirements. In a few instances, we
received comments that led to additional minor editorial corrections
and technical clarifications being made in the final rule, and our
rationale for these corrections and technical clarifications can be
found in section IV.F.3 of this preamble and in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for New Source Performance
Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II
Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
There are approximately 207 facilities subject to the HON, 19 P&R I
facilities (and 10 of these P&R I facilities are collocated with HON
processes), and 5 P&R II facilities (and 3 of these P&R II facilities
are collocated with HON processes). We also estimate that two
additional HON facilities will be newly constructed over the next 3
years. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's ECHO
(Enforcement and Compliance History Online) tool (https://echo.epa.gov)
indicates there are currently 592 SOCMI facilities subject to subpart
VV or VVa; and 284 SOCMI facilities subject to at least one of the
process vent NSPS subparts III, NNN, and/or RRR. The list of facilities
is available in the document titled Lists of Facilities Subject to the
HON, Group I and Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAPs, and NSPS
subparts VV, VVa, III, NNN, and RRR (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0069). We estimate that there will be one new greenfield
facility, six new affected facilities constructed at existing plant
sites, and 12 modified/reconstructed facilities subject to NSPS subpart
IIIa, NNNa, and/or RRRa in the next 5 years. We estimate there will be
one new greenfield facility, 34 new affected facilities constructed at
existing plant sites, and one modified facility subject to NSPS subpart
VVb in the next 5 years (and no affected facilities will trigger NSPS
subpart VVa reconstruction requirements).
B. What are the air quality impacts?
This final action will reduce HAP emissions by at least 1,372 tpy
and VOC emissions by 3,820 tpy from HON, P&R I, and P&R II emission
sources as well as the NSPS SOCMI air oxidation unit processes,
distillation operations, reactor processes, and equipment leaks
sources. These emission reductions are broken down by rule as follows.
Considering reported emissions inventories for EtO and chloroprene, we
estimate that the final amendments to the NESHAP will reduce overall
HAP emissions from the SOCMI source category by approximately 1,107 tpy
(and 1,919 tpy of VOC), reduce overall HAP emissions from the P&R I
source categories by approximately 264 tpy (and 278 tpy of VOC), and
reduce overall HAP and VOC emissions from the P&R II source categories
by approximately 1 tpy. We note that these emissions reductions do not
consider the potential excess emissions reductions from flares that
could result from the final monitoring requirements; we estimate flare
excess emissions reductions of 4,858 tpy HAP and 19,889 tpy VOC. Based
on our analysis of the finalized actions described in sections III.B.2,
III.D.2, and III.E of this preamble for the NSPS, we estimate that the
final amendments to the NSPS would reduce VOC emissions from the SOCMI
source category by approximately 1,622 tpy. The Agency was unable to
estimate HAP emission reductions for the final amendments to the NSPS
in this rulemaking. Emission reductions and secondary impacts (e.g.,
emission increases associated with supplemental fuel or additional
electricity) by rule are listed below. The only change in air impacts
since proposal stems from our reevaluation related to the TRE removal
for HON and the P&R I NESHAP, and its discontinued use in the new NSPS
subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa (based on comments received as discussed
in sections IV.B.3.a.i and IV.B.3.b.i of this preamble).
1. HON
For the HON, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission reductions of
approximately 1,107 and 1,919 tpy, respectively. The EPA estimates
these reductions include an approximate 54 tpy reduction in EtO
emissions (from reported emissions inventories) and a reduction of
20,177 tpy of methane emissions. The EPA also estimates that the final
action would result in additional emissions of 714 tpy of CO; 609,761
tpy of CO2; 277 tpy of NOX (including 5.3 tpy of
N2O); 12.7 tpy of particulate matter; and 1.0 tpy of
SO2. More information about the estimated emission
reductions and secondary impacts of this final action for the HON can
be found in the RIA accompanying this rulemaking, the documents
referenced in sections III.B through III.D of the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), and in the document titled
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous
Process Vents Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are Associated
with Processes Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end
Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and
Resins NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to
Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAP--FINAL, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
2. P&R I NESHAP
For the P&R I NESHAP, the EPA estimates HAP and VOC emission
reductions of approximately 264 and 278 tpy, respectively. The EPA
estimates these reductions include an approximate 14 tpy reduction in
chloroprene emissions (from reported emissions inventories); and a
reduction of 2,018 tpy of methane emissions. The EPA also estimates
that the final action would result in additional emissions of 110 tpy
of CO; 115,975 tpy of CO2; 75 tpy of NOX
(including 1.5 tpy of N2O); 4.8 tpy of particulate matter;
and 0.4 tpy of SO2. More information about the estimated
emission reductions and secondary impacts of this final action for the
P&R I NESHAP can be found in the RIA accompanying this rulemaking, the
documents referenced in sections III.B through III.D of the preamble to
the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), and in the document
titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous
Process Vents Located in the SOCMI Source Category that are Associated
with Processes Subject to HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end
Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and
Resins NESHAP, and Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to
Group II Polymers and Resins NESHAP--FINAL, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
3. P&R II NESHAP
For the P&R II NESHAP, the EPA estimates 1 tpy of HAP and VOC
emission reductions. The EPA also estimates that the final action would
not have any secondary pollutant impacts. More information about the
estimated
[[Page 43031]]
emission reductions and secondary impacts of this final action for the
P&R II NESHAP can be found in the RIA accompanying this rulemaking and
the documents referenced in sections III.B through III.D of the
preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023).
4. NSPS Subpart VVb
For the final NSPS subpart VVb, the EPA estimates VOC emission
reductions of approximately 340 tpy. The EPA estimates that the final
action would not have any secondary pollutant impacts. More information
about the estimated emission reductions and secondary impacts of this
final action for NSPS subpart VVb can be found in the RIA accompanying
this rulemaking and, in the document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review for
the SOCMI Equipment Leaks NSPS Subpart VVa (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0730-0096).
5. NSPS Subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa
For the final NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, the EPA estimates
VOC emission reductions of approximately 1,281 tpy and a reduction of
757 tpy of methane emissions. The EPA estimates that the final action
result in additional emissions of 21.5 tpy of CO; 15,370 tpy of
CO2; and 4.0 tpy of NOX (including 0.1 tpy of
N2O). More information about the estimated emission
reductions and secondary impacts of this final action for NSPS subparts
IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa can be found in the RIA accompanying this
rulemaking and in the document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review for the
SOCMI air oxidation unit processes, distillation operations, and
reactor processes NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR--FINAL, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
C. What are the cost impacts?
This final action will cumulatively cost (in 2021 dollars)
approximately $522 million in total capital costs and $194 million per
year in total annualized costs (including product recovery),\65\ based
on our analysis of the final action described in sections III and IV of
this preamble (see table 6 in section V.C.1 of this preamble).\66\
Costs by rule are listed below. The only change in cost impacts since
proposal stems from our reevaluation related to the TRE removal for HON
and the P&R I NESHAP, and its discontinued use in the new NSPS subparts
IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa (based on comments received as discussed in
sections IV.B.3.a.i and IV.B.3.b.i of this preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Recovered chemical product affected by this rulemaking is
related to LDAR control options for equipment leaks and heat
exchange systems, and is monetized as recovery credits by
multiplying VOC emissions reductions by a VOC credit of $900 per ton
(2021 dollars). This recovery credit has historically been used by
the EPA to represent the variety of chemicals that are used as
reactants and produced at SOCMI facilities.
\66\ The annualized costs for each final rule include the costs
of compliance, including those for monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. Recordkeeping and reporting costs for each final rule are
presented separately in section VI.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. HON
For the HON, the EPA estimates this final action will cost
approximately $455 million in total capital costs and $169 million per
year in total annualized costs (including product recovery). More
information about the estimated cost of this final action for the HON
can be found in the documents referenced in sections III.B through
III.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April 25,
2023), and in the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Continuous Process Vents Located in the SOCMI
Source Category that are Associated with Processes Subject to HON,
Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end Process Vents Associated with
Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and Process
Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group II Polymers and Resins
NESHAP--FINAL, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The HON represents the majority of total estimated costs for this
action (see Table 6 of this preamble).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.009
2. P&R I NESHAP
For the P&R I NESHAP, the EPA estimates this final action will cost
approximately $28 million in total capital costs and $15 million per
year in total annualized costs (including product recovery). More
information about the estimated cost of this final action for the P&R I
NESHAP can be found in the documents referenced in sections III.B
through III.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April
25, 2023), and in the document titled Clean Air Act Section
[[Page 43032]]
112(d)(6) Technology Review for Continuous Process Vents Located in the
SOCMI Source Category that are Associated with Processes Subject to
HON, Continuous Front-end and Batch Front-end Process Vents Associated
with Processes Subject to Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and
Process Vents Associated with Processes Subject to Group II Polymers
and Resins NESHAP--FINAL, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
3. P&R II NESHAP
For the P&R II NESHAP, the EPA estimates this final action will
cost approximately $2.9 million in total capital costs and $1.7 million
per year in total annualized costs (including product recovery). More
information about the estimated cost of this final action for the P&R
II NESHAP can be found in the documents referenced in sections III.B
through III.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 25080, April
25, 2023).
4. NSPS Subpart VVb
For the final NSPS subpart VVb, the EPA estimates this final action
will cost approximately $7.7 million in total capital costs and $1.1
million per year in total annualized costs (including product
recovery). More information about the estimated cost of this final
action for NSPS subpart VVb can be found in the document titled CAA
111(b)(1)(B) review for the SOCMI Equipment Leaks NSPS Subpart VVa (see
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0096).
5. NSPS Subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa
For the final NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, the EPA estimates
this final action will cost approximately $27.8 million in total
capital costs and $6.3 million per year in total annualized costs
(including product recovery). More information about the estimated cost
of this final action for NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa can be
found in the document titled CAA 111(b)(1)(B) review for the SOCMI air
oxidation unit processes, distillation operations, and reactor
processes NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR--FINAL, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this rulemaking, in
a document titled Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry, which is available in the docket for
this action. The economic impact analyses contain two parts. The
economic impacts of the final rulemaking on small entities are
calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs incurred by
affected ultimate parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides
a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of
HON, P&R I, and P&R II facilities and NSPS subpart VVb, IIIa, NNNa, and
RRRa facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate the
average small entity impacted by this final action will incur total
annualized costs of 0.5 percent of their revenue, with none exceeding
1.3 percent, not considering product recovery from compliance. With
product recovery, the EPA estimates that the average small entity
impacted by the rulemaking will incur total annualized costs of 0.49
percent of their revenue, with none exceeding 1.4 percent. We estimate
that 25 percent (2 in total) of impacted small entities will incur
total annualized costs greater than 1 percent of their revenue, and
none will incur total annualized costs greater than 3 percent of their
revenue. These estimates are unchanged when including product recovery.
This is based on a conservative estimate of costs imposed on ultimate
parent companies, where total annualized costs are imposed on a
facility are at the upper bound of what is possible under the rule and
do not include product recovery as an offset to the annualized costs.
In addition, we provide a fuller economic impact analysis using
costs of the HON and P&R I and II NESHAP that estimates changes in
affected chemical product price and output related to the impact of the
compliance costs on producers and consumers of such chemical products
for each of these final rules. There are seven chemical products
included in the economic impact analysis--butadiene, styrene, acetone,
acrylonitrile, ethylene dichloride, ethylene glycol, and EtO. For the
HON, chemical product prices are estimated to increase from less than
0.01 percent to 0.61 percent, and output by product is estimated to
decrease by less than 0.01 percent to 0.54 percent. For the two P&R
NESHAP, chemical product prices are estimated to increase by less than
0.01 percent to 0.05 percent, and output by product is estimated to
decrease by less than 0.01 percent to 0.09 percent. More explanation of
these economic impacts can be found in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) section later in this preamble and in the economic impact
analysis that is included in the RIA for this final rulemaking.
E. What are the benefits?
The emissions controls required by these rules are expected to
reduce emissions of a number of HAP. As stated in section V.B of this
preamble, this final action will reduce HAP emissions by at least 1,372
tpy and VOC emissions by 3,820 tpy from HON, P&R I, and P&R II emission
sources as well as the NSPS SOCMI air oxidation unit processes,
distillation operations, reactor processes, and equipment leaks sources
(see Table 7 of this preamble). The health effects associated with the
main HAP of concern from SOCMI (found within the HON), P&R I, and P&R
II source categories are discussed fully in Chapter 4 of the RIA: EtO
(Section 4.1.1), chloroprene (Section 4.1.2), benzene (Section 4.1.3),
1,3-butadiene (Section 4.1.4), vinyl chloride (Section 4.1.5), ethylene
dichloride (Section 4.1.6), chlorine (Section 4.1.7), maleic anhydride
(Section 4.1.8) and acrolein (Section 4.1.9). This final action is
projected to reduce EtO emissions from HON processes by approximately
54 tpy and reduce chloroprene emissions from Neoprene Production
processes subject to the P&R I NESHAP by approximately 14 tpy. We also
estimate that the final amendments to the NESHAP will reduce other HAP
emissions (excluding EtO and chloroprene) from the SOCMI, P&R I, and
P&R II source categories by approximately 1,304 tpy. We also estimate
that the final amendments to the NESHAP will reduce excess emissions of
HAP from flares in the SOCMI and P&R I source categories by an
additional 4,858 tpy. The Agency was unable to estimate HAP emission
reductions for the final amendments to the NSPS in this rulemaking.
[[Page 43033]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.010
Quantifying and monetizing the economic value of reducing the risk
of cancer and non-cancer effects is made difficult by the lack of a
central estimate of cancer and non-cancer risk and estimates of the
value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal) and morbidity
effects. Due to methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to
monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis.
Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion in the RIA of the
health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to
control under the final action. Health effects from reduced exposure to
EtO, chloroprene, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, vinyl chloride, ethylene
dichloride, chlorine, maleicanhydride, and acrolein are all HAP
emissions expected to be reduced by this rule. These pollutants all
have been associated with cancer risk is human among other acute health
effects.
The emission controls installed to comply with these final rules
are also expected to reduce VOC emissions which, in conjunction with
NOX and in the presence of sunlight, form ground-level ozone
(O3). This section reports the estimated ozone-related
benefits of reducing VOC emissions in terms of the number and value of
avoided ozone-attributable deaths and illnesses.
As a first step in quantifying O3-related human health
impacts, the EPA consults the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone
(Ozone ISA) \67\ as summarized in the Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update.\68\ This
document synthesizes the toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological
evidence to determine whether each pollutant is causally related to an
array of adverse human health outcomes associated with either acute
(i.e., hours or days-long) or chronic (i.e., years-long) exposure. For
each outcome, the Ozone ISA reports this relationship to be causal,
likely to be causal, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to
infer a causal relationship, or not likely to be a causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ U.S. EPA (2020). Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, DC. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/
R-20/012. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-ozone-and-related-photochemical-oxidants.
\68\ U.S. EPA. 2021. Technical Support Document (TSD) for the
Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone Season NAAQS Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/estimating_pm2.5-_and_ozone-attributable_health_benefits_tsd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In brief, the Ozone ISA found short-term (less than one month)
exposures to ozone to be causally related to respiratory effects, a
``likely to be causal'' relationship with metabolic effects and a
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
for central nervous system effects, cardiovascular effects, and total
mortality. The Ozone ISA reported that long-term exposures (one month
or longer) to ozone are ``likely to be causal'' for respiratory effects
including respiratory mortality, and a ``suggestive of, but not
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' for cardiovascular
effects, reproductive effects, central nervous system effects,
metabolic effects, and total mortality.
The combined total present value (PV) of the monetized human health
benefits for this final action are $77 million and $690 million at a 3
percent discount rate and $53 million and $475 million at a 7 percent
discount rate. The combined total PV of the net monetized benefits
(monetized health benefits plus monetized climate benefits minus
climate disbenefits) for the final amendments are negative $89 million
at the 3 percent discount rate to negative $110 million at the 7
percent discount rate and $480 million at the 3 percent discount rate
to $270 million at the 7 percent discount rate. The combined total
equivalent annual value (EAV) of the benefits for the final amendments
are negative $7 million at the 3 percent discount rate to negative $7.7
million at the 7 percent discount rate and $40 million at the 3 percent
discount rate to negative $34 million at the 7 percent discount rate.
See Table 18 in section VI.A of this preamble for additional details.
For all estimates, we summarized the monetized ozone-related health
benefits using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent for the 15-
year analysis period of these rules discounted back to 2023 rounded to
2 significant figures. We present two benefits estimates that are
separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are
[[Page 43034]]
two separate estimates. The estimates do not represent lower- and
upper-bound estimates. For a full explanation of why we present
monetized benefits estimates in this way, please refer to Chapter 4 of
the RIA. For the full set of underlying calculations see the benefits
workbook in the RIA, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking. In addition, we include the monetized disbenefits \69\
(i.e., negative effects) from additional CO2 and
NOX emissions, which occur with the HON, the P&R I NESHAP,
and NSPS IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, but not the P&R II NESHAP or NSPS
subpart VVb since there are no additional CO2 emissions as a
result of these two final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Monetized climate benefits and disbenefits are based on
changes (increases) in CO2 and N2O emissions
and decreases in CH4 emissions and are calculated using
three different estimates of the social cost of each greenhouse gas
(SC-GHG) (2.5 percent, 2 percent, and 1.5 percent discount rates).
For the presentational purposes, we show the benefits and
disbenefits associated with the SC-GHG at a 2 percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. HON
The PV of the monetized human health benefits for the HON are $70
million and $630 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $48 million
and $420 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The PV of the net
monetized benefits (monetized health benefits plus monetized climate
benefits minus climate disbenefits) \70\ for the final amendments for
the HON are negative $70 million at the 3 percent discount rate to
negative $92 million at the 7 percent discount rate and $490 million at
the 3 percent discount rate to $280 million at the 7 percent discount
rate. The EAV of the benefits for the final amendments for the HON are
negative $5.1 million at the 3 percent discount rate to negative $5.8
million at the 7 percent discount rate and $42 million at the 3 percent
discount rate to negative $35 million at the 7 percent discount rate.
In addition, this rule will provide unmonetized benefits from the
reduction of 1,107 tons of HAP emission reductions. This includes
positive health effects from reduced exposure to EtO, chloroprene,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, chlorine,
maleicanhydride, and acrolein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Climate disbenefit estimates include CO2 and
N2O increases in emissions. Climate benefit estimates
include methane decreases in emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. P&R I NESHAP
The PV of the monetized human health benefits for the P&R I NESHAP
are negative $0.2 million and negative $1.7 million at a 3 percent
discount rate and negative $0.2 million and negative $1.5 million at a
7 percent discount rate. The PV of the net monetized benefits
(monetized health benefits plus monetized climate benefits minus
monetized climate disbenefits) for the final amendments for the P&R I
NESHAP are negative $22 million at the 3 percent discount rate to
negative $22 million at the 7 percent discount rate and negative $24
million at the 3 percent discount rate to negative $24 million at the 7
percent discount rate. The EAV of the benefits for the final amendments
for the P&R I NESHAP are negative $1.7 million at the 3 percent
discount rate to negative $1.7 million at the 7 percent discount rate
and negative $1.8 million at the 3 percent discount rate to negative
$1.8 million at the 7 percent discount rate. In addition, this rule
will provide unmonetized benefits from 264 tpy of HAP reductions,
including an approximate 14 tpy reduction in chloroprene emissions.
3. P&R II NESHAP
The PV of the net monetized benefits (monetized health benefits
plus monetized climate benefits minus monetized climate disbenefits)
for the final amendments for the P&R II NESHAP are zero since there are
minimal VOC emission reductions (no more than 1 tpy), and there are no
changes in climate-related emissions (CO2, methane,
N2O).
4. NSPS Subpart VVb
For the final NSPS subpart VVb, the EPA the EPA elected to use the
benefit per-ton (BPT) approach because we cannot be confident of the
location of new facilities that would be subject to these final NSPS,
the EPA elected to use the BPT approach. BPT estimates provide the
total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality
and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of the VOC precursor for
ozone from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we
multiplied the estimates from the SOCMI sector by the corresponding
emission reductions. Also, there are no climate benefits or disbenefits
associated with this final NSPS. Thus, all monetized benefits are human
health benefits from VOC reductions. The PV of the monetized human
health benefits from this subpart is $1.3 million and $12 million at a
3 percent discount rate and $0.9 million and $7.9 million at a 7
percent discount rate. The EAV of the benefits for the final NSPS
subpart VVb are $0.10 million at the 3 percent discount rate to $0.09
million at the 7 percent discount rate and $0.93 million at the 3
percent discount rate to $0.82 million at the 7 percent discount rate.
5. NSPS Subpart IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa
For the final NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa, the EPA elected
to use the BPT approach because we cannot be confident of the location
of new facilities that would be subject to these final NSPS. BPT
estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of
premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of the
VOC precursor for ozone from a specified source. Specifically, in this
analysis, we multiplied the estimates from the SOCMI sector by the
corresponding emission reductions. The PV of the monetized human health
benefits from these three subparts are $6 million and $54 million at a
3 percent discount rate and $5.3 million and $47 million at a 7 percent
discount rate.
We then add these monetized human health benefits to the monetized
climate benefits and disbenefits to provide a total estimate of
monetized benefits for these final NSPS. The PV of the net monetized
benefits (monetized health benefits plus monetized climate benefits
minus monetized climate disbenefits) for the final NSPS subparts IIIa,
NNNa, and RRRa are negative $8 million and negative 56 million at the 3
percent discount rate and negative $4 million and negative $46 million
at the 7 percent discount rate. The EAV of the benefits for the final
NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa are negative $0.6 million at the 3
percent discount rate and negative $0.3 million at the 7 percent
discount rate and negative $4.7 million at the 3 percent discount rate
and negative $4.9 million at the 7 percent discount rate.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it
could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns
through this action under development.
[[Page 43035]]
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared
to the baseline?'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis'', U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section
3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the
potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of
such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this
action under CAA sections 111 and 112, which are based solely on the
statutory factors the EPA is required to consider under those sections.
1. SOCMI Source Category Demographics
For the SOCMI source category, the EPA examined the potential for
the 195 HON facilities (for which the EPA had HAP emissions
inventories) to pose concerns to communities living in proximity to
facilities, both in the baseline and under the control option
established in this final action. Specifically, the EPA analyzed how
demographics and risk are distributed both pre- and post-control. The
methodology and detailed results of the demographic analysis are
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Operations--
Final, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
To examine the potential for environmental justice concerns, the
EPA conducted three different demographic analyses: a baseline
proximity analysis, baseline cancer risk-based analysis (i.e., before
implementation of any controls required by this final action), and
post-control cancer risk-based analysis (i.e., after implementation of
the controls required by this final action). The baseline proximity
demographic analysis is an assessment of individual demographic groups
in the total population living within 10 km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31
miles) of the facilities. The baseline risk-based demographic analysis
is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups in the
population living within 10 km and 50 km of the facilities prior to the
implementation of any controls required by this final action
(``baseline''). The post-control risk-based demographic analysis is an
assessment of risks to individual demographic groups in the population
living within 10 km and 50 km of the facilities after implementation of
the controls required by this final action (``post-control''). In this
preamble, we focus on the results from the demographic analyses using a
10 km radius because this buffer distance encompasses all the facility
maximum individual risk (MIR) locations, captures 97 percent of the
population with baseline cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million from SOCMI source category emissions, and captures 100 percent
of the population with such baseline risks greater than 100-in-1
million. The results of the demographic analyses for populations living
within 50 km of facilities are included in the document titled Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) Operations--Final, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
For all three demographic analyses, the affected populations (i.e.,
those living within 10 km of the facilities) are compared to the
national population. The total population, population percentages, and
population count for each demographic group for the entire U.S.
population are shown in the column titled ``Nationwide Average for
Reference'' in Tables 8 through 10 of this preamble. These national
data are provided as a frame of reference to compare the results of the
baseline proximity analysis, the baseline cancer risk-based analysis,
and the post-control cancer risk-based analysis.
The results of the baseline proximity analysis indicate that a
total of 9.3 million people live within 10 km of the 195 HON
facilities. The percent of the population that is Black (25 percent) is
more than double the national average (12 percent), and the percent of
the population that is Hispanic or Latino (22 percent) is also higher
than the national average (19 percent). The percent of people living
below the poverty level and the percent of people over the age of 25
without a high school diploma are higher than the national averages.
The results of the baseline proximity analysis indicate that the
proportion of other demographic groups living within 10 km of HON
facilities is similar to or below the national average.
The baseline cancer risk-based demographic analysis, which focuses
on populations that have higher cancer risks, suggests that Hispanic/
Latino individuals and Black individuals living near the facilities are
overrepresented with respect to the national average at all cancer risk
levels greater than 1-in-1 million. In addition, the percent of
households with linguistic isolation (in which all household members
over the age of 14 only have limited English proficiency) increases as
the Hispanic/Latino population increases. At all risk levels greater
than or equal to 1-in-1-million, in cases where the percentage of the
population below the poverty level is 1.5 to 2 times the national
average, these populations are also above the national averages for
Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, or Other
Race/Multiracial populations.
The post-control risk-based demographic analysis shows that the
controls required by this final action will notably reduce the number
of people who are exposed to cancer risks resulting from SOCMI source
category emissions at all risk levels. At greater than or equal to a
cancer risk of 1-in-1 million, the number of individuals exposed will
decrease from 2.8 million to 2.7 million. At greater than or equal to a
cancer risk of 50-in-1 million, the number of individuals exposed will
decrease from 300,000 to 30,000. And after the control is implemented,
there will be no people who are exposed to cancer risks greater than
100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions.
Although all demographic populations will see reductions in the number
of individuals exposed at each level of risk, there will be individuals
who still remain at a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million or greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million risk post-control.
The demographic composition of those individuals still exposed to risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million will be similar to the
demographic composition of the individuals exposed at baseline. At the
greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million risk level, the percentages of
most demographic populations will be similar to the national average
percentages with the exception of the Hispanic/Latino population, which
will still be overrepresented with respect to the national average. At
the greater than 100-in-1 million risk level, there will be no
individuals exposed to cancer risk post-control, so there will be no
disparities among demographic groups at this risk level. The actions of
this
[[Page 43036]]
final rulemaking will improve human health of current and future
populations that live near these facilities. For more details see the
remainder of this section.
a. Baseline Proximity Analysis
The column titled ``Baseline Proximity Analysis for Pop. Living
within 10 km of HON Facilities'' in Tables 8 through 10 of this
preamble shows the share and count of people for each of the
demographic categories for the total population living within 10 km
(~6.2 miles) of HON facilities. These are the results of the baseline
proximity analysis and are repeated in Tables 8 through 10 of this
preamble for easy comparison to the risk-based analyses discussed
later.
Approximately 9.3 million people live within 10 km of the 195 HON
facilities assessed. The results of the proximity demographic analysis
indicate that the percent of the population that is Black (25 percent,
2.35M people) is more than double the national average (12 percent).
The percent of the population that is Hispanic or Latino (22 percent,
2M people) is higher than the national average (19 percent). The
percent of people living below the poverty level (19 percent, 1.75M
people) and percent of people over the age of 25 without a high school
diploma (16 percent, 1.5M people) are higher than the national averages
(13 percent and 12 percent, respectively). The baseline proximity
analysis indicates that the proportion of other demographic groups
living within 10 km of HON facilities is similar to or below the
national average.
b. Baseline Risk-Based Demographics
The baseline risk-based demographic analysis results are shown in
the ``baseline'' column of Tables 8 through 10 of this preamble. This
analysis focused on the populations living within 10 km (~6.2 miles) of
the HON facilities with estimated cancer risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (Table 8
of this preamble), greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million (Table 9 of
this preamble), and greater than 100-in-1 million (Table 10 of this
preamble). The risk analysis indicated that emissions from the source
category, prior to the controls required in this final action, expose
2.8 million people living near 111 facilities to a cancer risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million, 322,000 people living near 21
facilities to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million,
and 83,000 people living near 8 facilities to a cancer risk greater
than 100-in-1 million.
In the baseline, there are 2.8 million people living around 111 HON
facilities with a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions. The 111 HON facilities
are located across 17 states, but two-thirds of them are located in
Texas and Louisiana (50 in Texas and 33 in Louisiana). Ninety percent
of the people with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million are
living around 29 of the 111 HON facilities. All but three of these 29
facilities are located in Texas and Louisiana. The percent of the
baseline population with estimated cancer risks greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million who are Black (25 percent, 692,000 people) is well
above the average percentage of the national population that is Black
(12 percent). The Black population living within 10 km of two
facilities in Louisiana account for about a quarter of the total Black
population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions.
The percent of the population with cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions
prior to the controls required in this final action that is Hispanic or
Latino (34 percent, 958,000 people) is significantly higher than that
in the baseline proximity analysis (22 percent, 2 million people) and
well above the national average (19 percent). The population around an
Illinois facility is over 75 percent Hispanic or Latino, and accounts
for a quarter of the Hispanic/Latino population with risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions. Another group of 5 facilities in the Houston/Channelview
Texas area have local populations that are between 60 and 90 percent
Hispanic/Latino, and those communities account for 31 percent of the
Hispanic/Latino population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions. The percent of
the population that is linguistically isolated in the baseline with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (8 percent,
228,000 people) is higher than the percentage in the baseline proximity
analysis (5 percent, 510,000 people). The areas with the highest
Hispanic/Latino population are some of those with the highest percent
linguistic isolation.
Overall, the percent of the baseline population that is American
Indian or Alaska Native with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (0.2 percent) is
well below the national average (0.7 percent). The population with
baseline risks resulting from SOCMI source category emissions greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million have a percent American Indian or
Alaska Native population that is more than 2 times the national
average. These facilities are located in Texas (3), Louisiana, Montana,
Illinois, and Kansas.
The percent of the population below the poverty level with cancer
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions (18 percent, 513,000 people) is above the
national average (13 percent). The percent of the population living
below the poverty level within 10 km of 19 facilities is twice the
national average. The percent of the population over 25 years old
without a high school diploma with cancer risks greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (20
percent, 561,000 people) is greater than the national average (13
percent) as well as greater than the overall percent of the population
living near HON facilities who are over 25 years old without a high
school diploma (16 percent, 1.5 million people).
In the baseline, there are 322,000 people living around 21 HON
facilities with a cancer risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions. The 21 HON facilities
are located across 6 states, but two-thirds of them are located in
Texas and Louisiana. Ninety-six percent of the people with risks
greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source
category emissions live around 5 HON facilities, which are located in
Texas or Louisiana. The percent of the population that is Black with
baseline cancer risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions (18 percent, 59,000 people) is
above the national average (12 percent) but is significantly lower than
the percent of the population that is Black with risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions
(25 percent, 692,000 people). The percentage of Black individuals is
greater than the national average near over half of the facilities (12
facilities) where cancer risk is greater than 50-in-1 million resulting
from HON source category emissions. The populations near two facilities
in Texas account for about 70 percent of the number of Black
individuals with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions.
The percentage of the population that is Hispanic/Latino with risks
greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source
category emissions (25 percent, 81,000 people) is
[[Page 43037]]
similar to the percentage of the population that is Hispanic/Latino in
the total population living within 10 km of the facilities (22
percent). The percent of population that is Hispanic/Latino with cancer
risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions is above the national average at over half of
the facilities (13 facilities). The population near three facilities in
Texas accounts for about 80 percent of the number of Latino/Hispanic
people with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions.
Overall, the percent of the population that is American Indian or
Alaska Native with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (0.2 percent) is below
the national average (0.7 percent). Populations near four facilities
with baseline risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions have a percent American Indian or
Alaska Native population that is more than 2 times the national
average. These facilities are located in Texas (3) and Louisiana.
The percentage of the population with cancer risks resulting from
SOCMI source category emissions greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million that are below the poverty level (15 percent), over 25 years
old without a high school diploma (15 percent), or are linguistically
isolated (5 percent) are similar to or slightly above the respective
national averages. Of the population with risks greater than or equal
to 50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions, the
percentage of the population below the poverty level is twice the
national average near five facilities. For all 5 of these facilities,
the percentage of the population is also 2 times the national average
percentage for at least one race/ethnic demographic category.
In the baseline, there are 83,000 people living around 8 HON
facilities with a cancer risk resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions greater than 100-in-1 million. These 8 HON facilities are
located in Texas and Louisiana. The percent of the population that is
Black with baseline cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions (14 percent) is just above the
national average (12 percent). The percentage of the Black population
with cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions is between 2 to 4 times greater than the
national average at three facilities in Texas and one in Louisiana.
The percentage of the population that is Hispanic/Latino with risks
greater than 100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions (26 percent, 22,000 people) is above the national average (19
percent) and is similar to the share of the population that is
Hispanic/Latino with cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (25 percent,
81,000 people). The share of the Hispanic and Latino population with
cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source
category emissions is between 2 to 3 times greater than the national
average at five facilities in Texas and one in Louisiana.
Overall, the percent of the baseline population that is American
Indian or Alaska Native with risks greater than or equal to 100-in-1
million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (0.2 percent) is
well below the National Average (0.7 percent).
The percentage of the population with cancer risks greater than
100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions that
are below the poverty level (14 percent), over 25 without a high school
diploma (14 percent), or linguistically isolated (5 percent) are
similar or slightly above the respective national averages. The percent
of the population below the poverty level is 1.5 times the national
average at five facilities. The population living around three of these
facilities is also 1.5 times the national average for at least one
race/ethnic demographic category.
In summary, the baseline risk-based demographic analysis, which
focuses on populations that are expected to have higher cancer risks
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions, suggests that Hispanic
or Latino individuals are disproportionally overrepresented at all
cancer risk levels. Specifically, the percentage of the population that
is Hispanic/Latino is almost twice the national average at a cancer
risk equal to or greater than 1-in-1 million and almost 1.5 times the
national average at the 50-in-1-million and 100-in-1-million risk
levels. Similarly, the Black population is disproportionately
overrepresented at all cancer risk levels in the baseline risk
analysis. The percentage of Black individuals with risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions is twice the national average and 1.5 times the national
average at the 50-in-1-million risk level. In most cases, when the
percentage of the population below the poverty level is greater than
1.5 times the national average, the percentage of the population that
is Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, or Other/
Multiracial is above the national average.
c. Post-Control Risk-Based Demographics
This analysis focused on the populations living within 10 km (~6.2
miles) of the facilities with estimated cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million (Table 8 of this preamble), greater than or
equal to 50-in-1 million (Table 9 of this preamble), and greater than
100-in-1 million (Table 10 of this preamble) resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions after implementation of the control options
for HON sources investigated under the residual risk analysis as
described in section III.B.2.a of this preamble (``post-control''). The
results of the post-control risk-based demographics analysis are in the
columns titled ``Post-Control'' of Tables 8 through 10 of this
preamble. In this analysis, we evaluated how all of the controls
required by this final action and emission reductions for HON processes
described in this action affect the distribution of risks. This makes
it possible to characterize the post-control risks and to evaluate
whether the final action creates or mitigates potential environmental
justice concerns as compared to the baseline.
The risk analysis indicated that the number of people within 10 km
of a facility exposed to risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (Table 8 of this
preamble) is reduced from 2.8 million people in the baseline to
approximately 2.7 million people after implementation of the HON
controls required by this final action. The populations with a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions are located around 111 facilities for both
the baseline and post-control.
The post-control population living within 10 km of a facility with
estimated cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (Table 8 of this
preamble) has similar demographic percentages to the baseline
population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. However,
the number of individuals with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions is reduced in
each demographic. Specifically, the percentage of the population with
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions that is
[[Page 43038]]
Black remains high at 25 percent in the post-control scenario, but the
number of Black individuals with risks at or above 1-in-1 million is
reduced by over 25,000 people from 692,000 in the baseline to 664,000
in the post-control scenario.
Similarly, the percentage of the population with risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions that is Hispanic/Latino is almost twice the national average
in the post-control scenario (35 percent versus 19 percent), but the
number of Hispanic/Latino individuals with risks at or above 1-in-1
million is reduced by about 24,000 people from 958,000 in the baseline
to 934,000 in the post-control scenario.
The percent of the population that is American Indian or Alaska
Native with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions (0.2 percent) is below the
national average (0.7 percent) in the post-control analysis.
Nevertheless, there are seven facilities post-control with risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million with a percent American Indian
or Alaska Native population that is more than 2 times the national
average. However, the number of American Indians or Alaska Natives with
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions is reduced from 6,000 in the baseline to
5,000 in the post-control scenario.
The percent of the population below the poverty level is the same
in the post-control scenario as in the baseline (18 percent), but the
number of individuals with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions that are below
the poverty level is reduced by 20,000, from 513,000 to 493,000. The
percent of individuals over 25 years old without a high school diploma
is the same in the post-control scenario as in the baseline (20
percent), but the number of individuals with risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions
is reduced by almost 23,000, from 561,000 to 538,000. The percentage of
the population that is in linguistic isolation with risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions is the same in the post-control scenario (8 percent), but the
number of individuals is reduced by almost 8,000 compared to the
baseline, from 228,000 to 220,000.
The risk analysis indicated that the number of people living within
10 km of a facility and exposed to risks greater than or equal to 50-
in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (Table 9 of
this preamble) is reduced significantly from 322,000 people in the
baseline to 29,000 after implementation of the controls required by
this final action. This represents more than a 90 percent reduction in
the number of individuals with risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million when compared to the baseline. The populations living within 10
km of a facility and with a cancer risk greater than or equal to 50-in-
1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions are located
around 13 facilities in the post-control scenario, 8 fewer facilities
than in the baseline. These 13 facilities are located in Alabama,
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana (5 facilities), and Texas (4
facilities). The communities within 10 km of five of those facilities
(in Texas (3 facilities), Alabama, and Illinois) comprise 95 percent of
the population with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions.
The number of individuals with risks greater than or equal to 50-
in-1 million is reduced significantly for each demographic category in
the post-control scenario. Specifically, the percentage of the
population with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions that is Black decreased
in the post-control scenario and is equal to the national average (12
percent). The number of Black individuals with risks at or above 50-in-
1 million is reduced from 59,000 in the baseline to 4,000 post-control.
The percentage of the population with risks greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions that is
Hispanic/Latino increased from 25 percent in the baseline to 29 percent
post-control, but the number of Hispanic/Latino individuals with risks
at or above 50-in-1 million is reduced from 81,000 in the baseline to
9,000 post-control.
Overall, the percent of the population that is American Indian or
Alaska Native with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions (0.3 percent) is well
below the national average (0.7 percent) in the post-control scenario.
In addition, the number of American Indians or Alaska Natives with
risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI
source category emissions is reduced from 600 in the baseline to less
than 100 post-control.
The percent of the population with risks greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category emissions whose
income is below the poverty level (11 percent) is reduced from the
baseline (15 percent) post-control. In addition, the number of
individuals with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions who are below the
poverty level is reduced from 47,000 to 3,000. The number of
individuals with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million
resulting from SOCMI source category emissions that are over 25 years
old without a high school diploma or are linguistically isolated are
also greatly reduced post-control.
The risk analysis indicated that the number of people living within
10 km of a facility with risks greater than 100-in-1 million resulting
from SOCMI source category emissions (Table 10 of this preamble) is
reduced from 83,000 individuals in the baseline to zero individuals
after application of the SOCMI controls required by this final action.
Therefore, for the post-control risk-based demographic results, there
are no greater than 100-in-1 million demographic results to discuss.
In summary, as shown in the post-control risk-based demographic
analysis, the controls required by this final action significantly
reduce the number of people expected to have cancer risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million, greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million,
and greater than 100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source category
emissions. Although the number of individuals with risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million is reduced in the post-control scenario
(reduced from 2.8 million people to 2.7 million people), populations of
Black individuals, Hispanic/Latino individuals, those living below the
poverty level, and those over 25 without a high school diploma remain
disproportionately represented. Similarly, the number of individuals
with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million is reduced
significantly in the post-control scenario (reduced from 322,000 to
29,000), but the population of Black individuals remains
disproportionately represented. Post-control, there are no individuals
with risks greater than 100-in-1 million resulting from SOCMI source
category emissions (reduced from 83,000 people to 0 people).
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 43039]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.011
[[Page 43040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.012
[[Page 43041]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.013
[[Page 43042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.014
[[Page 43043]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.015
[[Page 43044]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.016
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
2. HON Whole-Facility Demographics
As described in Section III.A.5 of this preamble, we assessed the
facility-wide (or ``whole-facility'') risks for 195 HON facilities in
order to compare the SOCMI source category risk to the whole-facility
risks, accounting for HAP emissions from the entire major source and
not just those resulting from SOCMI source category emissions at the
major source as discussed in the previous section. The whole-facility
risk analysis includes all sources of HAP emissions at each facility as
reported in the NEI (described in section III.C of the preamble to the
proposed rule). Since HON facilities tend to include HAP emissions
sources from many source categories, the EPA conducted a whole-facility
demographic analysis focused on post-control risks. This whole-facility
demographic analysis characterizes the remaining risks communities face
after implementation of the controls required in this final action for
both the SOCMI source category and the Neoprene Production source
category.
The whole-facility demographic analysis is an assessment of
individual demographic groups in the total population living within 10
km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. In this
preamble, we focus on the 10 km radius for the demographic analysis
because, based on SOCMI category emissions, this distance includes all
the facility MIR locations, includes 97 percent of the population with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million, and includes 100
percent of the population with risks greater than 100-in-1 million. The
results of the whole-facility demographic analysis for populations
living within 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) Operations: Whole Facility Analysis--Final, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The whole-facility demographic analysis post-control results are
shown in Table 11 of this preamble. This analysis focused on the
populations living within 10 km of the HON facilities with estimated
whole-facility post-control cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-
1 million, greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million, and greater than
100-in-1 million. The risk analysis indicated that all emissions from
the HON facilities, after the reductions imposed by the final rule,
expose a total of about 3 million people living around 140 facilities
to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, 79,000 people
living around 24 facilities to a cancer risk greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million, and 2,900 people living around 4 facilities to a
cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million.
When the HON whole-facility populations are compared to the SOCMI
source category populations in the post-control scenarios, we see
400,000 additional people with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million, 50,000 additional people with risks greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million, and 2,900 additional people with risks greater than
100-in-1 million. With the exception of a smaller percentage of
affected Hispanic/Latino individuals (35 percent for category versus 33
percent whole-facility), the demographic distribution of the whole-
facility population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-million is
similar to the source category population with risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million in the post-control scenario. The population
with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million in the whole-
facility analysis has a lower percent of Hispanic/Latino individuals
than the category population with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-
1 million (25 percent versus 29 percent). The percentage of the
population with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million that is
below the poverty level or over 25 years old without a high school
diploma is higher for the whole-facility post-control population than
for the category post-control population (14 percent versus 11
percent). The SOCMI source category emissions analysis indicated that
there are no people with post-control risks greater than 100-in-1
million. Based on results from the whole-facility emissions analysis,
there are 2,900 people with post-control risks greater than 100-in-
million. The increased cancer risk for most of these 2,900 people is
driven by EtO emissions from non-HON processes and whole-facility
emissions from the neoprene production facility (a combination of the
remaining SOCMI category risk and Neoprene Production category risk at
this facility). The percent of the population in the whole-facility
analysis with post-control risks greater than 100-in-1 million that is
Black (25 percent, 700 individuals) is well above the national average
(12 percent). In addition, the percent of the population in the whole-
facility analysis with a post control risk greater than 100-in-1
million that is below the poverty level (22 percent, 600 individuals),
and the percent of the population that is over 25 years old without a
high school diploma (27 percent, 800 individuals) are above the
national average (13
[[Page 43045]]
percent and 12 percent, respectively). We note that as further
discussed in section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing a
fenceline action level of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ for EtO for the whole-
facility. As such, we believe that once fenceline monitoring is fully
implemented, that whole-facility post-control risks will be lower and
the number of people presented in Table 11 of this preamble at each
risk threshold will be lower.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 43046]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.017
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 43047]]
3. Neoprene Production Source Category Demographics
For the Neoprene Production source category subject to the P&R I
NESHAP, the EPA examined the potential for the one neoprene production
facility to pose environmental justice concerns to communities both in
the baseline and under the control option required in this final
action. Specifically, the EPA analyzed how demographics and risk are
distributed both pre- and post-controls. The methodology and detailed
results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical
report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Neoprene Production Operations--Final, which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
To examine the potential for environmental justice concerns in the
pre-control baseline, the EPA conducted three different demographic
analyses: a baseline proximity analysis, baseline cancer risk-based
analysis, and post-control cancer risk-based analysis. These analyses
(total baseline, baseline risk, and post-control risks) assessed the
demographic groups in the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles)
and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facility. For the Neoprene Production
source category, we focus on the 5 km radius for the demographic
analysis because it encompasses the facility MIR location and captures
100 percent of the population with cancer risks resulting from Neoprene
Production source category emissions greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million and greater than 100-in-1 million. The results of the proximity
analysis for populations living within 50 km are included in the
technical report included in the docket for this final action.
Nationwide average demographics data are provided as a frame of
reference.
The results of the proximity demographic analysis indicate that a
total of about 29,000 people live within 5 km of the Neoprene facility.
The percent of the population that is Black is more than four times the
national average. The percent of people living below the poverty level
is almost double the national average.
The baseline risk-based demographic analysis indicates that Black
individuals are disproportionally overrepresented at all cancer risk
levels resulting from Neoprene Production source category emissions
(percent of Black individuals range from 5 to 7 times the national
average percent). The percent of the population that is below the
poverty level is twice the national average within 5 km of the Neoprene
facility.
The post-control risk-based demographic analysis indicates that the
controls required for Neoprene Production source category in this final
action do not reduce the number of people with cancer risks resulting
from Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million at the 5 km distance. However, the controls do
significantly reduce the number of people with risks resulting from
Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million within 50 km. The populations with risks resulting from
Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million and greater than 100-in-1 million are reduced at all
distances by more than 88 percent by the controls for the Neoprene
Production source category under consideration. In the post-control
scenario, there are no people with risks resulting from Neoprene
Production source category emissions greater than 100-in-1 million.
a. Baseline Proximity Analysis
The column titled ``Total Population Living within 5 km of Neoprene
Facility'' in Tables 12 through 14 of this preamble shows the
demographics for the total population living within 5 km (~3.1 miles)
of the neoprene facility. A total of about 29,000 people lives within 5
km of the one neoprene facility. The results of the proximity
demographic analysis indicate that the percentage of the population
that is Black (56 percent, 16,000 people) is more than four times the
national average (12 percent). The percentage of people living below
the poverty level (23 percent, 6,500 people) and those over the age of
25 without a high school diploma (16 percent, 4,500 people) are higher
than the national averages (13 percent and 12 percent, respectively).
The baseline proximity analysis indicates that the proportion of other
demographic groups living within 5 km of the neoprene facility is
similar to or below the national average.
b. Baseline Risk-Based Demographics
The baseline risk-based demographic analysis results are shown in
the ``baseline'' column of Tables 12 through 14 of this preamble. This
analysis focused on the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) of
the neoprene facility with estimated cancer risks resulting from
Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million (Table 12 of this preamble), greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million (Table 13 of this preamble), and greater than 100-in-1
million (Table 14 of this preamble) in the absence of the reductions we
are finalizing in this action.
In the baseline, emissions from the Neoprene Production source
category expose all individuals within 5 km of the facility (29,000
people) to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. Since
the entire population within 5 km are exposed to risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million, the demographics of the baseline at-risk
population are the same as the total baseline population. Specifically,
a high percentage of the population is Black (56 percent versus 12
percent nationally), below the poverty line (23 percent versus 13
percent nationally), and over the age of 25 without a high school
diploma (16 percent versus 12 percent nationally). The percentages of
other demographic groups within the population with risks resulting
from Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million living within 5 km of the neoprene facility are
similar to or below the national average. Within 50 km (~31 miles) of
the facility, about 70 percent of the population (687,000 people of the
1 million total within 50 km) is exposed to a cancer risk resulting
from Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. Additional details on the 50 km results can be
found in the demographics report located in the docket.
The risk-based demographics analysis indicates that emissions from
the source category, prior to the reductions we are finalizing in this
action, expose about 13,000 individuals within 5 km of the facility to
a cancer risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million (about half of
the total population within 5 km). As seen at the lower risk level of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, the population with risks
greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million has a very high percentage of
Black individuals; that percent is almost 6 times the national average
(68 percent versus 12 percent nationally). The percentage of the
population that is below the poverty line is more than double the
national average (27 percent versus 13 percent nationally), and the
percentage of the population that is over the age of 25 without a high
school diploma is 1.5 times the national average (18 percent versus 12
percent nationally). The percentages of other demographic groups within
the population with risks resulting from Neoprene Production source
category emissions greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million living
within 5 km of the Neoprene facility are similar to or below the
national average.
In the baseline, there are 2,000 people living within 5 km of the
Neoprene
[[Page 43048]]
facility with a cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million resulting
from Neoprene Production source category emissions. The percent of the
population that is Black with baseline cancer risk greater than 100-in-
1 million (85 percent, 1,750 people) is over 7 times the national
average (12 percent). The percentage of the population with cancer
risks greater than 100-in-1 million that is below the poverty level (31
percent, 600 people) is about 2.5 times the national average (13
percent). The percent of the population that is over 25 without a high
school diploma (14 percent, 300 people) is just above the national
average (12 percent).
In summary, the baseline risk-based demographic analysis, which
focuses on those specific locations that are expected to have higher
cancer risks in the baseline, indicates that Black individuals are
disproportionally overrepresented at all cancer risk levels.
Specifically, at all risk levels, the percent of the population that is
Black is 5 to 7 times the national average and the percent of the
population that is below the poverty level is twice the national
average within 5 km of the neoprene production facility.
c. Post-Control Risk-Based Demographics
This analysis focused on the populations living within 5 km (~3.1
miles) of the facility with estimated cancer risks resulting from
Neoprene Production source category emissions greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million (Table 12 of this preamble), greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million (Table 13 of this preamble), and greater than 100-in-1
million (Table 14 of this preamble) after implementation of the
Neoprene Production source category control options as described in
section III.B.2.b of this preamble. The results of the post-control
risk-based demographics analysis are in the columns titled ``Post-
Control'' of Tables 12 through 14 of this preamble. In this analysis,
we evaluated how all of the controls required by this final action and
emission reductions for the Neoprene Production source category
described in this action affect the distribution of risks. This makes
it possible to characterize the post-control risks and to evaluate
whether the final action creates or mitigates potential environmental
justice concerns as compared to the baseline.
The risk analysis indicated that the number of people exposed to
risks resulting from Neoprene Production source category emissions
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million within 5 km of the facility
(Table 12 of this preamble) is unchanged from the baseline (29,000
people). Therefore, the population living within 5 km of the facility
with estimated cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million in
the post-control scenario (Table 12 of this preamble) has the same
demographic percentages as the total population in the proximity
analysis and the population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million in the baseline risk analysis. Specifically, the percentage of
the population with risks resulting from Neoprene Production source
category emissions in the post-control analysis that is greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million and is Black (56 percent) is almost 5 times the
national average (12 percent), and the percent below the poverty level
(23 percent) is almost 2 times the national average (13 percent).
However, after control, the number of people exposed to risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million within 50 km (~31 miles) of the
facility is significantly reduced from 687,000 to 58,000.
The risk analysis indicated that the number of people living within
5 km of the facility and exposed to risks greater than or equal to 50-
in-1 million resulting from Neoprene Production source category
emissions (Table 13 of this preamble) is reduced significantly from
about 13,000 people in the baseline to 1,450 people after
implementation of the controls required by this final action. This
represents more than an 88 percent reduction in the size of the
populations at risk when compared to the baseline population. The post-
control population living within 5 km of the facility with estimated
cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million for post-control
(Table 13 of this preamble) is almost entirely Black (92 percent). The
number of Black individuals with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million is reduced from about 9,000 in the baseline to 1,350 people
post-control. Similarly, the post-control population with risks greater
than or equal to 50-in-1 million has a high percent of people below
poverty (33 percent). The number of people with risks greater than or
equal 50-in-1 million that are below the poverty level is reduced from
3,400 in the baseline to 500 people post-control.
The risk analysis indicated that the number of people living within
5 km of the facility and exposed to risks greater than 100-in-1 million
resulting from Neoprene Production source category emissions (Table 14
of this preamble) is reduced from over 2,000 people in the baseline to
zero people after application of the controls required by this final
action. Therefore, for the post-control risk-based demographics, there
are no people with risks above 100-in-1 million resulting from Neoprene
Production source category emissions.
In summary, as shown in the post-control risk-based demographic
analysis, the controls required by this final action do not reduce the
number of people expected to have cancer risks resulting from Neoprene
Production source category emissions greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million at the 5 km distance. The controls do significantly reduce the
number of people with risks resulting from Neoprene Production source
category emissions greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million within 50
km. In the post-control population with risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million, Black individuals and those living below the poverty
level remain disproportionately represented. For the populations with
risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million and greater than 100-in-
1 million, the controls under consideration reduce the at-risk
populations by more than 88 percent at all distances. In the post-
control population with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million,
Black individuals and those living below the poverty level remain
disproportionately represented. Post-control, there are no people with
risks resulting from Neoprene Production source category emissions
greater than 100-in-1 million.
4. Neoprene Production Whole-Facility Demographics
We also evaluated the whole-facility post-control risks at the
neoprene production facility. The whole-facility post-control risks
include all known sources of HAP emissions at the neoprene production
facility, not just those from neoprene production processes. This
whole-facility demographic analysis provides a more complete picture of
the remaining risks at the facility after implementation of the
controls required by this final action and the populations exposed to
emissions resulting from them. The post-control whole-facility
emissions at the neoprene production facility are a combination of the
remaining SOCMI source category risk and Neoprene Production source
category risk at this facility. Based on whole-facility emissions,
there are a total of about 29,000 people living within 5 km (~3.1
miles) with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million after
controls, which is unchanged from the baseline. There are 87,000 people
within 50 km of the neoprene facility with post-control whole-facility
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, which is a 90 percent
reduction of the 891,000 people in the
[[Page 43049]]
baseline. The population within 5 km with post-control whole-facility
risks of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 56 percent Black,
and 23 percent are below the poverty level. Based on whole-facility
emissions there are a total of about 3,000 people remaining after
controls living within 5 km and 50 km of the neoprene facility with
risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million (a reduction of 82
percent from the baseline of 16,000 people). This population is 81
percent Black and 30 percent below the poverty level. Based on whole-
facility emissions, about 300 people with risks greater than 100-in-1
million remain after controls are implemented living within 5 km and 50
km of the neoprene production facility (a reduction of 86 percent from
the baseline of 2,300 people). This population is 99 percent Black, and
33 percent are below the poverty level. We note that as further
discussed in section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing a
secondary fenceline action level of 0.3 [micro]g/m\3\ for chloroprene
for the whole-facility. As such, we believe once fenceline monitoring
is fully implemented, that whole-facility post-control risks will be
reduced to at or below 100-in-1 million and that 0 people (rather than
the approximate 300 people as shown in this analysis) will have
lifetime cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million post-control.
The results of the whole-facility demographic analysis for
populations living within 50 km are included in the document titled
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Neoprene
Production Operations: Whole Facility Analysis--Final, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 43050]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.018
[[Page 43051]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.019
[[Page 43052]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.020
[[Page 43053]]
5. P&R I and P&R II Source Categories Demographics
As stated above, for the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP, other than the
Neoprene Production source category within the P&R I NESHAP, we have
not conducted a risk analysis for this final action. Therefore, to
examine the potential for any environmental justice concerns that might
be associated with P&R I (excluding neoprene) or P&R II facilities, we
performed a proximity demographic analysis, which is an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km
(~3.1 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA then
compared the data from this analysis to the national average for each
of the demographic groups. In this preamble, we focus on the proximity
results for the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) of the
facilities. The results of the proximity analysis for populations
living within 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Polymers and Resins I
and Polymer and Resins II Facilities (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0730-0060).
The results show that for populations within 5 km of the 18 P&R I
facilities (5 in Louisiana, 6 in Texas, 2 in Kentucky, one each in
Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Michigan), the following
demographic groups were above the national average: Black individuals
(37 percent versus 12 percent nationally), Hispanic/Latino individuals
(24 percent versus 19 percent nationally), people living below the
poverty level (24 percent versus 13 percent nationally), people over
the age of 25 without a high school diploma (21 percent versus 12
percent nationally), and linguistically isolated households (7 percent
versus 5 percent nationally).
The results show that for populations within 5 km of the 5 P&R II
facilities (2 in Texas, one each in Alabama, Arkansas, Oregon), the
following demographic groups were above the national average: American
Indian or Alaska Native individuals (0.9 percent versus 0.7 percent
nationally), Hispanic/Latino individuals (27 percent versus 19 percent
nationally), and people over the age of 25 without a high school
diploma (13 percent versus 12 percent nationally).
A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed is
included as Table 15 of this preamble. The methodology and the results
of the demographic analysis are presented in the document titled
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Polymers
and Resins I and Polymer and Resins II Facilities (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0060).
[[Page 43054]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.021
6. Proximity Demographics Analysis for NSPS Subpart VVb
In addition, to provide information for the public's understanding,
the Agency conducted an analysis of the impacts of the final NSPS
subpart VVb on communities with environmental justice concerns. The
final NSPS subpart VVb covers VOC emissions from certain equipment
leaks in the SOCMI from sources that are constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after April 25, 2023.
The locations of the new, modified, and reconstructed sources that
will become subject to NSPS subpart VVb are not known. Therefore, to
provide information on the potential for any environmental justice
issues that might be associated with the final NSPS subpart VVb, we
performed a proximity demographic analysis for 575 existing facilities
that are currently subject to NSPS subparts VV or VVa. These
[[Page 43055]]
represent facilities that might modify or reconstruct in the future and
become subject to the NSPS subpart VVb requirements. This proximity
demographic analysis characterized the individual demographic groups of
the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km (~31 miles) of the
existing facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis
to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
The proximity demographic analysis shows that, within 5 km of the
facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is double the
national average (24 percent versus 12 percent) (Table 16 of this
preamble). The percent of people within 5 km living below the poverty
level is significantly higher than the national average (20 percent
versus 13 percent). The percent of people living within 5 km that are
over 25 without a high school diploma is also higher than the national
average (17 percent versus 12 percent). The proximity demographics
analysis shows that within 50 km of the facilities, the percent of the
population that is Black is above the national average (15 percent
versus 12 percent). At 50 km, the remaining percentages for the
demographics are similar to or below the national average.
[[Page 43056]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.022
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
The methodology and the results (including facility-specific
results) of the demographic analysis are presented in the document
titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Existing Facilities Subject to NSPS Subparts VV or VVa (see Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0058).
7. Proximity Demographics Analysis for NSPS Subparts IIIa, NNNa, and
RRRa
The final NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa cover VOC emissions
from certain process vents in the SOCMI from sources that are
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 25, 2023.
The locations of the new, modified, and reconstructed sources that
will become subject to NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa are not
known. Therefore, to assess the potential for any environmental justice
issues that might be associated with the final subparts, we performed a
proximity demographic analysis for 266 existing facilities that are
currently subject to NSPS subpart III, NNN, or RRR. These facilities
represent facilities that might modify or
[[Page 43057]]
reconstruct in the future and thus become subject to the final NSPS
requirements. This proximity demographic analysis characterized the
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km
(~3.1 miles) and within 50 km (~31 miles) of the existing facilities.
The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national
average for each of the demographic groups.
The proximity demographic analysis shows that, within 5 km of the
facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is almost
double the national average (23 percent versus 12 percent) (Table 17 of
this preamble). In addition, the percentage of the population within 5
km of the facilities that is Hispanic or Latino is also above the
national average (23 percent versus 19 percent). The percentage of
people within 5 km living below the poverty level is significantly
higher than the national average (20 percent versus 13 percent). The
percentage of people living within 5 km that are over 25 without a high
school diploma is also higher than the national average (17 percent
versus 12 percent). The proximity demographics analysis also shows that
within 50 km of the facilities, the percentage of the population that
is Black is above the national average (18 percent versus 12 percent).
At 50 km, the remaining percentages for the demographics are similar to
or below the national average.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 43058]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.023
The methodology and the results (including facility-specific
results) of the demographic analysis are presented in the document
titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Existing Facilities Subject to NSPS Subparts III, NNN, or RRR (see
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0059).
G. Children's Environmental Health
This action finalizes standards to address risk from, among other
HAP, EtO and chloroprene. In addition, the EPA's Policy on Children's
Health \72\ also applies to this action. Accordingly, we evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of EtO and chloroprene emissions
and exposures on children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Children's Health Policy Available at: https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-policy-and-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because EtO and chloroprene are mutagenic (i.e., it can damage
DNA), children are expected to be more susceptible to their harmful
effects. To take this into account, as part of the risk assessments in
support of this rulemaking, the EPA followed its
[[Page 43059]]
guidelines \73\ and applied age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs)
for childhood exposures (from birth up to 16 years of age). It should
be noted that, because EtO and chloroprene are mutagenic, emission
reductions finalized in this action will be particularly beneficial to
children. The results of this evaluation are contained in section IV.A
of this preamble and further documented in the risk reports, Residual
Risk Assessment for the SOCMI Source Category in Support of the 2024
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for
the Polymers & Resins I Neoprene Production Source Category in Support
of the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which are available
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ U.S. EPA. 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing
Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-03/003F.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. 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 a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order
12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic
analysis of the potential impacts associated with this action. This
analysis, titled Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry (EPA-452/R-24-001), is also available
in the docket. Table 18 of this preamble summarizes the PV and EAV of
total costs and benefits for the final action.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 43060]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.024
[[Page 43061]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. HON
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2753.02. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the HON that revise provisions
pertaining to emissions from flares, PRDs, process vents, storage
vessels, pressure vessels, storage vessel degassing, heat exchange
systems, maintenance vents, wastewater, and equipment leaks. The EPA is
also finalizing additional requirements pertaining to EtO emissions
from process vents, storage vessels, heat exchange systems, equipment
leaks, and wastewater; and dioxins and furans emissions from process
vents. In addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the HON that
revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM, add
requirements for electronic reporting of periodic reports and
performance test results, fenceline monitoring, carbon adsorbers, and
bypass monitoring, and make other minor clarifications and corrections.
This information will be collected to assure compliance with the HON.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of HON
facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subparts F, G, H, and I).
Estimated number of respondents: 209 (assumes two new respondents
over the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and
annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 83,500 hours (per year) to comply with the final amendments
in HON. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $66,000,000 (per year)
which includes $57,500,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with the final amendments in HON.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
2. P&R I NESHAP
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2410.07. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the P&R I NESHAP that revise
provisions pertaining to emissions from flares, PRDs, continuous
process vents, batch process vents, storage vessels, pressure vessels,
storage vessel degassing, heat exchange systems, maintenance vents,
wastewater, and equipment leaks. The EPA is also finalizing
requirements pertaining to: chloroprene emissions from process vents,
storage vessels, and wastewater; and dioxins and furans emissions from
continuous process vents and batch process vents. In addition, the EPA
is finalizing amendments to the P&R I NESHAP that revise provisions
pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM, add requirements for
electronic reporting of periodic reports and performance test results,
fenceline monitoring, carbon adsorbers, and bypass monitoring, and make
other minor clarifications and corrections. This information will be
collected to assure compliance with the P&R I NESHAP.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of P&R I
facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart U).
Estimated number of respondents: 19 (assumes no new respondents
over the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and
annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 8,126 hours (per year) to comply with the final amendments in
the P&R I NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $3,200,000 (per year)
which includes $2,370,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with the final amendments in the P&R I
NESHAP.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
3. P&R II NESHAP
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1681.12. The OMB Control
Number is 2060-0290. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for
this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the P&R II NESHAP to add
requirements pertaining to: heat exchange systems, PRDs, dioxins and
furans emissions from process vents, and maintenance vents. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the P&R II NESHAP that
revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM, add
requirements for electronic reporting of periodic reports and
performance test results, and make other minor clarifications and
corrections. This information will be collected to assure compliance
with the P&R II NESHAP.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of P&R II
facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart W).
Estimated number of respondents: 5 (assumes no new respondents over
the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 202 hours (per year) to comply with the final amendments in
the P&R II NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $1,780,000 (per year)
which includes $1,760,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with the final amendments in the P&R II
NESHAP.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control
[[Page 43062]]
numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part
9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval
in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information
collection activities in this final rule.
4. NSPS Subparts VV, VVa, III, NNN, and RRR
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA for NSPS subparts VV, VVa, III, NNN, and RRR. OMB has
previously approved the information collection activities contained in
the existing regulations and has assigned OMB Control number 2060-0443
for 40 CFR part 60 subparts VV, VVa, III, NNN, and RRR (this one OMB
Control number is for the Consolidated Federal Air Rule in 40 CFR part
65 which presents the burden for complying with 40 CFR part 65, but
also presents the burden for facilities complying with each individual
subpart). This action is believed to result in no changes to the
information collection requirements of these NSPS, so that the
information collection estimate of project cost and hour burden from
these NSPS have not been revised.
5. NSPS Subpart VVb
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2755.02. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing in a new NSPS subpart VVb the same
requirements in NSPS subpart VVa plus requiring that all gas/vapor and
light liquid valves be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 100
ppm and all connectors be monitored once every 12 months at a leak
definition of 500 ppm. In addition, the EPA is finalizing the removal
of SSM provisions (the standards apply at all times), additional
requirements for electronic reporting of periodic reports, and other
minor clarifications and corrections. This information will be
collected to assure compliance with the NSPS subpart VVb.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of certain
equipment leaks in the SOCMI.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart VVb).
Estimated number of respondents: 36 (assumes 36 new respondents
over the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 5,414 hours (per year) to comply with all of the requirements
in the NSPS. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $3,600,000 (per year)
which includes $3,050,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with all of the requirements in the NSPS.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
6. NSPS Subpart IIIa
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2756.02. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing requirements for new, modified, or
reconstructed sources as follows: require owners and operators reduce
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all vent streams of an
affected facility (and not including the alternative of maintaining a
TRE index value greater than 1 without the use of a control device);
require standards apply at all times (including during SSM periods);
revise monitoring requirements for flares; add maintenance vent
requirements; revise requirements for adsorber monitoring; exclude the
relief valve discharge exemption such that any relief valve discharge
to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a violation of the emissions
standard; and prohibit an owner or operator from bypassing the control
device at any time, and to report any such violation. This information
will be collected to assure compliance with the NSPS subpart IIIa.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of air oxidation
unit processes in the SOCMI.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart IIIa).
Estimated number of respondents: 6 (assumes 6 new respondents over
the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 275 hours (per year) to comply with all of the requirements
in NSPS subpart IIIa. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $4,280,000 (per year)
which includes $4,250,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with all of the requirements in NSPS
subpart IIIa.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
7. NSPS Subpart NNNa
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2757.02. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing requirements for new, modified, or
reconstructed sources as follows: require owners and operators reduce
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all vent streams of an
affected facility (and not including the alternative of maintaining a
TRE index value greater than 1 without the use of a control device);
require the standards apply at all times (including during SSM
periods); revise monitoring requirements for flares; add maintenance
vent requirements; revise requirements for adsorber monitoring; exclude
the relief valve discharge exemption such that any relief valve
discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a violation of the
emissions standard; and prohibit an owner or
[[Page 43063]]
operator from bypassing the control device at any time, and to report
any such violation. This information will be collected to assure
compliance with the NSPS subpart NNNa.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of distillation
operations in the SOCMI.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNNa).
Estimated number of respondents: 7 (assumes 7 new respondents over
the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 320 hours (per year) to comply with all of the requirements
in NSPS subpart NNNa. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $4,990,000 (per year)
which includes $4,960,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with all of the requirements in NSPS
subpart NNNa.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
8. NSPS Subpart RRRa
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2759.02. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing requirements for new, modified, or
reconstructed sources as follows: require owners and operators reduce
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all vent streams of an
affected facility (and not including the alternative of maintaining a
TRE index value greater than 1 without the use of a control device);
require the standards apply at all times (including during SSM
periods); revise monitoring requirements for flares; add maintenance
vent requirements; revise requirements for adsorber monitoring; exclude
the relief valve discharge exemption such that any relief valve
discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream is a violation of the
emissions standard; and prohibit an owner or operator from bypassing
the control device at any time, and to report any such violation. This
information will be collected to assure compliance with the NSPS
subpart RRRa.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of reactor
processes in the SOCMI.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart RRRa).
Estimated number of respondents: 6 (assumes 6 new respondents over
the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 275 hours (per year) to comply with all of the requirements
in NSPS subpart RRRa. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: average annual cost is $4,280,000 (per year)
which includes $4,250,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs, to comply with all of the requirements in NSPS
subpart RRRa.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that each of the final rules in 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 small businesses. For the final amendments to the HON, the
Agency has determined that all small entities affected by this action,
estimated to be 9, may experience an average impact of costs being less
than 0.5 percent of revenues, not including product recovery, or about
0.43 percent, including product recovery from compliance. Two of these
nine entities experienced costs above one percent of revenues, neither
had costs exceeding three percent of revenues and represent a small
total number of impacted entities. For the final amendments to the P&R
I NESHAP, one small entity is impacted and its impact is costs less
than 0.5 percent of revenues. For the final amendments to the P&R II
NESHAP, no small entities are impacted. Details of the analysis for
each final rule including the NSPS that are included in this final
action are presented in the RIA for this action, which is found in the
docket.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more (adjusted for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The
costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $100 million
or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
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. None of the facilities that have been identified
as being affected by this action are owned or operated by tribal
governments or located within tribal lands. 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 subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This is because EtO and
chloroprene, which are HAP emitted by sources subject to this action,
are mutagenic (i.e., it can damage DNA), and children are presented
with higher risks based on the
[[Page 43064]]
EPA's ADAFs for these HAP. Accordingly, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of EtO and chloroprene emissions
on children.
The protection offered by these standards to reduce emissions of
EtO and chloroprene accounts for childhood exposures by applying ADAFs
to account for greater susceptibility of children to these HAP. The
results of this evaluation are contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and further documented in the risk reports, Residual Risk
Assessment for the SOCMI Source Category in Support of the 2024 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for the
Polymers & Resins I Neoprene Production Source Category in Support of
the 2024 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which are available in
the docket. This action is preferred over other regulatory options
because a residual risk assessment was performed and options were
assessed and finalized to reduce emissions of EtO and chloroprene,
which will be extremely beneficial to children. Furthermore, EPA's
Policy on Children's Health also applies to this action. Information on
how the Policy was applied is available under ``Children's
Environmental Health'' in the Supplementary Information section of this
preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA expects this final action would
not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, natural
gas production, or electricity production. We estimate that this final
action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports or exports of
crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in the energy
supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy supply,
distribution, and use as a whole nationally, no significant adverse
energy effects are expected to occur. For more information on these
estimates of energy effects, please refer to the economic impact
analysis contained in the RIA for this final rulemaking.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. As discussed in the
proposal preamble (88 FR 25080, April 25, 2023), the EPA conducted
searches for the HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP through the
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 25A, 25D, 26,
26A, 27 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, 301, 305, 316 and 320 of 40 CFR
part 63, Appendix A, 624, 625, 1624, and 1625 of 40 CFR part 136
Appendix A, 624.1 of 40 CFR part 163, Appendix A. During the EPA's VCS
search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described
technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the
EPA's reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and
reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 22, 25D, 27, 305, 316,
624, 624.1, 625, 1624 and 1625.
The EPA incorporates by reference VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--
Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 3B (referenced in NSPS subparts IIIa, NNNa, RRR, and
RRRa, and NESHAP subpart G) for the manual procedures only and not the
instrumental procedures. This method is used to quantitatively
determine the gaseous constituents of exhausts including oxygen,
CO2, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur
trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
hydrocarbons. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 method incorporates
both manual and instrumental methodologies for the determination of
oxygen content. The manual method segment of the oxygen determination
is performed through the absorption of oxygen. This method is available
at the ANSI, 1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990; telephone number: 1-800-843-5990; and email
address: [email protected]. See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org. The standard is available to everyone at a cost
determined by ANSI/ASME ($96). ANSI/ASME also offer memberships or
subscriptions for reduced costs. The cost of obtaining these methods is
not a significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably
available.
The EPA incorporates by reference VCS ASTM D6420-18, ``Standard
Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry'' as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 18 (referenced in NSPS subparts VV, VVa, VVb,
III, IIIa, NNN, NNNa, RRR, and RRRa, and NESHAP subparts F, G, H, I, U,
and W) with the following caveats. This ASTM procedure uses a direct
interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify
VOC and has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to EPA Method 18
only when the target compounds are all known and the target compounds
are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420-18 should not be
used for methane and ethane because the atomic mass is less than 35;
and ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. The
ASTM D6420-18 test method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/
mass spectrometer to measure 36 VOC. The test method provides onsite
analysis of extracted, unconditioned, and unsaturated (at the
instrument) gas samples from stationary sources.
The EPA incorporates by reference VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved
2020), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320
(referenced in NESHAP subparts F and U) with caveats requiring
inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. This ASTM
procedure uses an extractive sampling system that routes stationary
source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and
quantification of gaseous compounds. We note that we proposed VCS ASTM
D6348-12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320; however, since
proposal, a newer version of the method (VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved
2020)) is now available and we have determined it to be equivalent to
EPA Method 320 with caveats. The VCS ASTM D6348-12
[[Page 43065]]
(Reapproved 2020) method is an extractive FTIR Spectroscopy-based field
test method and is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of
multiple target compounds in emission streams from stationary sources.
When using ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), the following conditions
must be met: (1) Annexes Al through A8 to ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved
2020) are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) Annex
A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined
for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to
be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R
value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data
is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for
that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be
adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the
following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.
The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). The Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements is an EPA developed
guidance manual for the installation, operation, maintenance and
calibration of meteorological systems including the wind speed and
direction using anemometers, temperature using thermistors, and
atmospheric pressure using aneroid barometers, as well as the
calculations for wind vector data for on-site meteorological
measurements. This VCS may be obtained from the EPA's National Service
Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep).
The two ASTM methods (ASTM D6420-18 and ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved
2020)) are available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite
1030, Washington, DC 20036; telephone number: 1-610-832-9500. See
https://www.astm.org/. These standards are available to everyone at a
cost determined by the ASTM ($57 and $76, respectively). The ASTM also
offers memberships or subscriptions that allow unlimited access to
their methods. The cost of obtaining these methods is not a significant
financial burden, making the methods reasonably available to
stakeholders.
While the EPA identified 13 other VCS as being potentially
applicable, the Agency decided not to use them because these methods
are impractical as alternatives because of the lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and
policy considerations. The search and review results have been
documented and are in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (see Docket
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0008).
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f), subpart A--General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
Also, although not considered a VCS, the EPA incorporates by
reference, ``Purge-And-Trap For Aqueous Samples'' (SW-846-5030B),
``Volatile, Nonpurgeable, Water-Soluble Compounds by Azeotropic
Distillation'' (SW-846-5031), and ``Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)'' (SW-846-8260D) into 40 CFR
63.109(b)(1), (c)(1), (d), and (e) (for HON) and 40 CFR 63.510(b)(1)
and (c) (for the P&R I NESHAP); and ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El
Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Water Sources,'' into 40 CFR 63.104(g)(3)(i) and (ii), and 40 CFR
63.104(f)(3)(iv)(D)(1). Method SW-846-5030B can be used as a purge-and-
trap procedure for the analysis of volatile organic compounds in
aqueous samples and water miscible liquid samples. Method SW-846-5031
can be used for separation of nonpurgeable, water-soluble, and volatile
organic compounds in aqueous samples or leachates from solid matrices
using azeotropic distillation. Method SW-846-8260D can be used to
determine VOCs in a variety of solid waste matrices and is applicable
to nearly all types of samples, regardless of water content. The
Modified El Paso Method utilizes dynamic or flow-through system for air
stripping a sample of water and analyzing the resultant off-gases for
VOCs using a common flame ionization detector (FID) analyzer. Each of
these methods is used to identify organic HAP in water; however, SW-
846-5031, SW-846-8260D, and SW-846-5030B use water sampling techniques
and the Modified El Paso Method uses an air stripping sampling
technique. The SW-846 methods are reasonably available from the EPA at
https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846 while the Modified El Paso Method is
reasonably available from TCEQ at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/field_ops/guidance/samplingappp.pdf.
In addition, because we are moving all HON definitions from NESHAP
subparts G and H (i.e., 40 CFR 63.111 and 40 CFR 63.161, respectively)
into the definition section of NESHAP subpart F (i.e., 40 CFR 63.101),
we are incorporating by reference, API Manual of Petroleum Measurement
Specifications (MPMS) Chapter 19.2 (API MPMS 19.2), ``Evaporative Loss
From Floating-Roof Tanks,'' Fourth Edition, August 2020 and ``Standard
Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial
Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope'' (ASTM D2879-23)
into 40 CFR 63.101 (for HON). The API method (API MPMS 19.2) \74\
contains methodologies for estimating the total evaporative losses of
hydrocarbons from various types of floating-roof tanks. The ASTM method
(ASTM D2879-23) addresses the determination of the vapor pressure of
one or more organic components in a gas stream. In addition, the EPA is
adding new NSPS subpart VVb to part 60 and is allowing the use of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ API MPMS 19.2 is a replacement for API publication 2517,
which was previously referenced in the HON.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM D240-19, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid
Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter and ASTM D4809-18, Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter (Precision Method). The ASTM D240-19 method addresses the
determination of net heat of combustion of components of liquid
hydrocarbon fuels ranging in volatility from that of light distillates
to that of residual fuels. The ASTM D4809-18 method is similar to that
of ASTM D240-19, though it specifically addresses the determination of
net heat of combustion of aviation fuels with high precision. In
addition, ASTM D4809-18 can also be used to address the determination
of net heat of combustion for a wide range of volatile and non-volatile
materials. The EPA currently allows for the use of previous versions of
these methods in NSPS
[[Page 43066]]
subparts VV and VVa for the determination of net heat of combustion of
components in a gas stream; therefore, we are allowing the use of the
most recent versions of these methods for this same purpose in NSPS
subpart VVb.
ASTM D1945-14 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Test Method for Analysis
of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography. This method addresses the
determination of the concentration of a component in a gas stream. The
EPA currently allows for the use of previous versions of this method in
NSPS subparts VV and VVa for the determination of the concentration of
a component in a gas stream; therefore, we are allowing the use of the
most recent version of this method for this same purpose in NSPS
subpart VVb.
ASTM D2879-23, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope. This method addresses the determination of the vapor
pressure of one or more organic components in a gas stream. The EPA
currently allows for the use of previous versions of this method in
NSPS subparts VV and VVa for the determination of the vapor pressure of
one or more organic components in a gas stream; therefore, we are
allowing the use of the most recent version of this method for this
same purpose in NSPS subpart VVb.
ASTM E168-16 (Reapproved 2023), Standard Practices for General
Techniques of Infrared Quantitative Analysis, ASTM E169-16 (Reapproved
2022): Standard Practices for General Techniques of Ultraviolet-Visible
Quantitative Analysis, and ASTM E260-96 (Reapproved 2019), Standard
Practice for Packed Column Gas Chromatography. The ASTM E168-16 method
addresses the determination of the percent VOC content in the process
fluid that is contained in or contacts a piece of equipment using
infrared analysis. The ASTM E169-16 is similar to ASTM E168-16, though
it uses ultraviolet-visible spectrum analysis rather than infrared
analysis. Lastly, ASTM E260-96 is similar to ASTM E168-16 and ASTM
E169-16, though it uses gas chromatography rather than infrared or
ultraviolet-visible spectrum analysis, respectively. The EPA currently
allows for the use of previous versions of these methods in NSPS
subparts VV and VVa for the determination of the percent VOC content in
the process fluid that is contained in or contacts a piece of
equipment; therefore, we are allowing the use of these most recent
versions of these methods for this same purpose in NSPS subpart VVb.
All of the ASTM methods that we are adding into the HON, the P&R I
NESHAP, and NSPS subpart VVb are available at the same address and
contact information provided earlier in this section of this preamble.
The API method that we are adding into the HON is available at 200
Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001-5571;
telephone number: 1-202-682-8000. See https://www.apiwebstore.org/standards/19_2. These standards are available to everyone at a cost
determined by the ASTM or API. The ASTM also offers memberships or
subscriptions that allow unlimited access to their methods. The cost of
obtaining these methods is not a significant financial burden, making
the methods reasonably available to stakeholders.
We are also finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and
40 CFR part 63, subpart A to address incorporations by reference. We
are amending 40 CFR 60.17 and 40 CFR 63.14 to reflect the ANSI, ASTM,
EPA SW, and TCEQ methods incorporated by reference. We are also adding
40 CFR 60.485(g)(5) and 40 CFR 60.485a(g)(5) to 40 CFR 60.17--
``Incorporations by Reference'' paragraph (h)(195) since they were
mistakenly not added to 40 CFR 60.17 during the last amendment to this
rule.
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 the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. For the
HON, a total of 9.3 million people live within 10 km (~6.2 miles) of
the 195 HON facilities that were assessed for risk. The percentages of
the population that are Black (25 percent versus 12 percent) and
Hispanic or Latino (22 percent versus 19 percent) are higher than the
national averages. The proportion of other demographic groups living
within 10 km of HON facilities is similar or lower than the national
average. For the Neoprene Production source category, a total of 29,000
people live within 5 km of the one neoprene production facility in the
country. The percent of the population that is Black (56 percent versus
12 percent) is substantially higher than the national average. The
proportion of other demographic groups living within 10 km of HON
facilities is similar or lower than the national average. The EPA also
conducted a risk assessment of possible cancer risks and other adverse
health effects, and found that prior to this final rule, cancer risks
were above acceptable levels for a number of areas in which these
demographic groups live for the SOCMI and Neoprene Production source
categories. See section V.F for an analysis that characterizes
populations living in proximity of facilities and risks prior to the
final rule.
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. This action establishes standards for EtO emission
sources at HON processes and chloroprene emission sources at neoprene
production processes. This action also corrects and clarifies
regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of SSM,
including removing general exemptions for periods of SSM and adding
work practice standards for periods of SSM where appropriate,
addressing flare combustion efficiency, and requiring fenceline
monitoring for pollutants that drive cancer risks for HON and neoprene
production sources. As a result of these changes, we expect zero people
to be exposed to risk levels above 100-in-1 million due to emissions
from each of these source categories. See section IV.A of this preamble
for more information about the control requirements of the regulation
and the resulting reduction in cancer risks.
The EPA additionally identified and addressed environmental justice
concerns by engaging in outreach activities to communities we expect to
be impacted by chemical plants that emit EtO.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ https://www.epa.gov/hazardous-air-pollutants-ethylene-oxide/inspector-general-follow-ethylene-oxide-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional information on potential impacts, see the document
titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Operations--Final; Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) Operations: Whole Facility Analysis--Final; Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Neoprene Production
Operations--Final; Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Neoprene Production Operations: Whole Facility Analysis--
[[Page 43067]]
Final, which are available in the docket for this rulemaking. Also see
the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Polymers and Resins I and Polymer and Resins II Facilities
(Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-0060).
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 meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I, part 60 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 60.17 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a), paragraphs (c) introductory text, (d)
introductory text, and (e) introductory text, and paragraph (g)(14);
0
b. In paragraph (h):
0
i. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(221) through (228) as (h)(226) through
(233), (h)(196) through (220) as (h)(200) through (224), (h)(171)
through (195) as (h)(174) through (198), (h)(115) through (170) as
(h)(117) through (172), and (h)(28) through (114) as (h)(29) through
(115);
0
ii. Adding new paragraph (h)(28);
0
iii. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(78);
0
iv Adding new paragraphs (h)(116), (173), and (199);
0
v. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(217) and (221), and
0
vi. Adding new paragraph (h)(225); and
0
c. Revising and republishing paragraph (j); and
0
d. Removing note 1 to paragraph (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
(a)(1) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved incorporation by
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the EPA and at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the
EPA at: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA WJC West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC; phone: (202) 566-1744.
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email
[email protected].
(2) The IBR material may be obtained from the sources in the
following paragraphs of this section or from one or more private
resellers listed in this paragraph (a)(2). For material that is no
longer commercially available, contact: the EPA (see paragraph (a)(1)
of this section).
(i) Accuris Standards Store, 321 Inverness Drive, South Englewood,
CO 80112; phone: (800) 332-6077; website: https://store.accuristech.com.
(ii) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), see paragraph
(d) of this section.
(iii) GlobalSpec, 257 Fuller Road, Suite NFE 1100, Albany, NY
12203-3621; phone: (800) 261-2052; website: https://standards.globalspec.com.
(iv) Nimonik Document Center, 401 Roland Way, Suite 224, Oakland,
CA 94624; phone (650) 591-7600; email: center.com">info@document-center.com;
website: www.document-center.com.
(v) Techstreet, phone: (855) 999-9870; email: [email protected];
website: www.techstreet.com.
* * * * *
(c) American Hospital Association (AHA) Service, Inc., Post Office
Box 92683, Chicago, Illinois 60675-2683.
* * * * *
(d) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd
Street, Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10036-7417; phone: (212) 642-4980;
email: [email protected]; website: www.ansi.org.
* * * * *
(e) American Petroleum Institute (API), 200 Massachusetts Ave. NW,
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001; phone: (202) 682-8000; website:
www.api.org.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], Issued August 31, 1981; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.56c(b); 60.63(f); 60.106(e); 60.104a(d), (h), (i),
and (j); 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g); 60.106a(a); 60.107a(a), (c),
and (d); 60.275(e); 60.275a(e); 60.275b(e); tables 1 and 3 to subpart
EEEE; tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF; table 2 to subpart JJJJ;
Sec. Sec. 60.285a(f); 60.396(a); 60.614a(b); 60.664a(b); 60.704(b);
60.704a(b); 60.2145(s) and (t); 60.2710(s) and (t); 60.2730(q);
60.4415(a); 60.4900(b); 60.5220(b); tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL;
tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM; Sec. Sec. 60.5406(c); 60.5406a(c);
60.5406b(c); 60.5407a(g); 60.5407b(g); 60.5413(b); 60.5413a(b) and (d);
60.5413b(d) and (d); 60.5413c(b) and (d).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(28) ASTM D240-19, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter, approved November 1,
2019; IBR approved for Sec. 60.485b(g).
* * * * *
(78) ASTM D1945-14 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, approved December 1,
2019; IBR approved for Sec. 60.485b(g).
* * * * *
(116) ASTM D2879-23, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of
Liquids by Isoteniscope, approved December 1, 2019; IBR approved for
Sec. 60.485b(e).
* * * * *
(173) ASTM D4809-18, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method),
approved July 1, 2018; IBR approved for Sec. 60.485b(g).
* * * * *
(199) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, approved November 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.485(g); 60.485a(g); 60.485b(g); 60.611a;
[[Page 43068]]
60.614(b) and (e); 60.614a(b) and (e), 60.664(b) and (e); 60.664a(b)
and (f); 60.700(c); 60.704(b) (d), and (h); 60.705(l); 60.704a(b) and
(f).
* * * * *
(217) ASTM E168-16 (Reapproved 2023), Standard Practices for
General Techniques of Infrared Quantitative Analysis, approved January
1, 2023; IBR approved for Sec. 60.485b(d).
* * * * *
(221) ASTM E169-16 (Reapproved 2022), Standard Practices for
General Techniques of Ultraviolet-Visible Quantitative Analysis,
approved November 1, 2022; IBR approved for Sec. 60.485b(d).
* * * * *
(225) ASTM E260-96 (Reapproved 2019), Standard Practice for Packed
Column Gas Chromatography, approved September 1, 2029; IBR approved for
Sec. 60.485b(d).
* * * * *
(j) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; phone: (202) 272-0167; website:
www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa.
(1) EPA-453/R-08-002, Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations, September 2008, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS); IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.393a(e) and (h); 60.395a(k); 60.397a(e); appendix A to subpart MMa.
(2) EPA-454/B-08-002, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version
2.0 (Final), March 2008; IBR approved for appendix K to this part.
(3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 60.124(f); 60.124a(f); 60.273(e); 60.273a(e);
60.273b(e); 60.373a(b); 60.2145(r); 60.2710(r); 60.4905(b); 60.5225(b).
(Available from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf).
(4) EPA-600/R-12/531, EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, May 2012; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.5413(d); 60.5413a(d); 60.5413b(d); 60.5413c(d).
(5) In EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (Available from: www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-compendium):
(i) SW-846-6010D, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission
Spectrometry, Revision 5, July 2018; IBR approved for appendix A-5 to
this part.
(ii) SW-846-6020B, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,
Revision 2, July 2014; IBR approved for appendix A-5 to this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 60.480 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.480 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(f) Overlap with other regulations for flares. Owners and operators
of flares that are subject to the flare related requirements of this
subpart and flare related requirements of any other regulation in this
part or 40 CFR 61 or 63, may elect to comply with the requirements in
Sec. 60.619a, Sec. 60.669a, or Sec. 60.709a, in lieu of all flare
related requirements in any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR
part 61 or 63.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.481 by revising the definition of ``Process unit'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.481 Definitions.
* * * * *
Process unit means components assembled to produce, as intermediate
or final products, one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 60.489
of this part. A process unit can operate independently if supplied with
sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities for
the product.
* * * * *
Sec. 60.482-1 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.482-1 by removing paragraph (g).
0
6. Amend Sec. 60.485 by revising paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.485 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part and ASTM D2504-67, 77 or
88 (Reapproved 1993) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) shall
be used to determine the concentration of sample component ``i.'' ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) may be used in
lieu of Method 18, under the conditions specified in paragraphs
(g)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If the target compounds are all known and are all listed in
Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as measurable.
(ii) ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and ethane.
(iii) ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total VOC method.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 60.486 by adding paragraph (l) as follows:
Sec. 60.486 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(l) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format.
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
0
8. Amend Sec. 60.487 by revising paragraphs (a) and (f) and adding
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.487 Reporting requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator beginning
six months after the initial startup date. Beginning on July 15, 2025,
or once the report template for this subpart has been available on the
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1 year, whichever date is later, submit all subsequent
reports using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website for this subpart and following the procedure specified in
paragraph (g) of this section. 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.
* * * * *
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section
remain in force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement
authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves
reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance
surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources
within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided
that they comply with the requirements established by the State. The
EPA will not approve a waiver of electronic reporting to the
[[Page 43069]]
EPA in delegating enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting to
the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph
cannot be used to relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of
the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this
section to the EPA.
(g) If an owner or operator is required to submit notifications or
reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (g), the
owner or operator must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice
to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information the
owner or operator claims as CBI. Although the EPA does not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if an owner or operator wishes to
assert a CBI claim for some of the information in the report or
notification, the owner or operator must submit a complete file in the
format specified in this subpart, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2)
of this section. Clearly mark the part or all of the information
claimed to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. The owner or
operator must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with the
CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph (g).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. Owners and operators who
do not have their own file sharing service and who require assistance
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments should email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(2) If an owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other files should be sent to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material
should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should
not show through the outer envelope.
(h) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, owner
and operator must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(i) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, owners and operators
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) The owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
[[Page 43070]]
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
9. Revise the heading of subpart VVa to read as follows:
Subpart VVa--Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
November 7, 2006, and on or Before April 25, 2023
0
10. Amend Sec. 60.480a by revising paragraphs (b), revising and
republishing paragraph (d), and revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.480a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(b) Any affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after November
7, 2006, and on or before April 25, 2023, shall be subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d)(1) If an owner or operator applies for one or more of the
exemptions in this paragraph, then the owner or operator shall maintain
records as required in Sec. 60.486a(i).
(2) Any affected facility that has the design capacity to produce
less than 1,000 Mg/yr (1,102 ton/yr) of a chemical listed in Sec.
60.489 is exempt from Sec. Sec. 60.482-1a through 60.482-10a.
(3) If an affected facility produces heavy liquid chemicals only
from heavy liquid feed or raw materials, then it is exempt from
Sec. Sec. 60.482-1a through 60.482-10a.
(4) Any affected facility that produces beverage alcohol is exempt
from Sec. Sec. 60.482-1a through 60.482-10a.
(5) Any affected facility that has no equipment in volatile organic
compounds (VOC) service is exempt from Sec. Sec. 60.482-1a through
60.482-10a.
* * * * *
(f) Owners and operators of flares that are subject to the flare
related requirements of this subpart and flare related requirements of
any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR part 61 or 63, may elect to
comply with the requirements in Sec. 60.619a, Sec. 60.669a, or Sec.
60.709a, in lieu of all flare related requirements in any other
regulation in this part or 40 CFR part 61 or 63.
0
11. Amend Sec. 60.481a by revising the definitions of ``Capital
expenditure'' and ``Process Unit'' to read as follows:
Sec. 60.481a Definitions.
* * * * *
Capital expenditure means, in addition to the definition in Sec.
60.2, an expenditure for a physical or operational change to an
existing facility that:
(1) Exceeds P, the product of the facility's replacement cost, R,
and an adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, as
reflected by the following equation: P = R x A, where:
(i) The adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, is the
product of the percent of the replacement cost, Y, and the applicable
basic annual asset guideline repair allowance, B, divided by 100 as
reflected by the following equation:
Equation 1 to Capital Expenditure Paragraph (1)(i)
A = Y x (B / 100);
(ii) The percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y =
1.0 - 0.575 log X, where X is:
(A) 2006 minus the year of construction if the physical or
operational change to the existing facility was on or after November
16, 2007, or
(B) 1982 minus the year of construction if the physical or
operational change to the existing facility was prior to November 16,
2007; and
(iii) The applicable basic annual asset guideline repair allowance,
B, is selected from the following table consistent with the applicable
subpart:
Table 1 to Capital Expenditure Paragraph (1)(iii)--Determining
Applicable Value for B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of B to be
Subpart applicable to facility used in equation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) VVa............................................. 12.5
(B) GGGa............................................ 7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Process unit means components assembled to produce, as intermediate
or final products, one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec.
60.489a. A process unit can operate independently if supplied with
sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities for
the product.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 60.482-1a by revising paragraph (e) introductory text
and removing paragraph (g).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 60.482-1a Standards: General.
* * * * *
(e) Equipment that an owner or operator designates as being in VOC
service less than 300 hr/yr is excluded from the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 60.482-2a through 60.482-10a if it is identified as required
in Sec. 60.486a(e)(6) and it meets any of the conditions specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 60.482-11a [Removed]
0
13. Remove Sec. 60.482-11a.
0
14. Amend Sec. 60.485a by revising paragraphs (b) and (g)(5) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.485a Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
standards in Sec. Sec. 60.482-1a through 60.482-10a, 60.483a, and
60.484a as follows:
(1) Method 21 shall be used to determine the presence of leaking
sources. The instrument shall be calibrated before use each day of its
use by the procedures specified in Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this
part. The following calibration gases shall be used:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration no
more than 2,000 ppm greater than the leak definition concentration of
the equipment monitored. If the monitoring instrument's design allows
for multiple calibration scales, then the lower scale shall be
calibrated with a calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm
above the concentration specified as a leak, and the highest scale
shall be calibrated
[[Page 43071]]
with a calibration gas that is approximately equal to 10,000 ppm. If
only one scale on an instrument will be used during monitoring, the
owner or operator need not calibrate the scales that will not be used
during that day's monitoring.
(2) A calibration drift assessment shall be performed, at a
minimum, at the end of each monitoring day. Check the instrument using
the same calibration gas(es) that were used to calibrate the instrument
before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21 of appendix A-
7 to this part, section 10.1, except do not adjust the meter readout to
correspond to the calibration gas value. Record the instrument reading
for each scale used as specified in Sec. 60.486a(e)(8). Divide the
arithmetic difference of the initial and post-test calibration response
by the corresponding calibration gas value for each scale and multiply
by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
(i) If a calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of
more than 10 percent, then all equipment with instrument readings
between the appropriate leak definition and the leak definition
multiplied by (100 minus the percent of negative drift/divided by 100)
that was monitored since the last calibration must be re-monitored.
(ii) If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then, at the
owner/operator's discretion, all equipment with instrument readings
above the appropriate leak definition and below the leak definition
multiplied by (100 plus the percent of positive drift/divided by 100)
monitored since the last calibration may be re-monitored.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part and ASTM D2504-67, 77,
or 88 (Reapproved 1993) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17)
shall be used to determine the concentration of sample component ``i.''
ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) may be used
in lieu of Method 18, under the conditions specified in paragraphs
(g)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If the target compounds are all known and are all listed in
Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as measurable.
(ii) ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and ethane.
(iii) ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total VOC method.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 60.486a by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text and (b) introductory
text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (e) introductory text;
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(9);
0
e. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text; and
0
f. Adding paragraph (l).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 60.486a Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) The owner or operator shall record the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for each monitoring
event required by Sec. Sec. 60.482-2a, 60.482-3a, 60.482-7a, 60.482-
8a, and 60.483-2a.
* * * * *
(b) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.482-
2a, 60.482-3a, 60.482-7a, 60.482-8a, and 60.483-2a, the following
requirements apply:
* * * * *
(c) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.482-
2a, 60.482-3a, 60.482-7a, 60.482-8a, and 60.483-2a, the following
information shall be recorded in a log and shall be kept for 2 years in
a readily accessible location:
* * * * *
(e) The following information pertaining to all equipment subject
to the requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.482-1a to 60.482-10a shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily accessible location:
* * * * *
(f) The following information pertaining to all valves subject to
the requirements of Sec. 60.482-7a(g) and (h), and all pumps subject
to the requirements of Sec. 60.482-2a(g) shall be recorded in a log
that is kept in a readily accessible location:
* * * * *
(l) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format.
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
0
16. Amend Sec. 60.487a by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(2)(vii) and (viii):
0
e. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g), (h) and (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.487a Reporting requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator beginning
6 months after the initial startup date. Beginning on July 15, 2025, or
once the report template for this subpart has been available on the
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1 year, whichever date is later, submit all subsequent
reports using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website for this subpart and following the procedure specified in
paragraph (g) of this section. 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.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Number of compressors for which leaks were not repaired as
required in Sec. 60.482-3a(g)(1), and
* * * * *
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section
remain in force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement
authority to a state under section 111(c) of the CAA, approves
reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance
surveillance adopted by such state. In that event, affected sources
within the state will be relieved of the obligation to comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided
that they comply with the requirements established by the state. The
EPA will not approve a waiver of electronic reporting to the EPA in
delegating enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting to the EPA
cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph cannot
be used to relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the
requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section
to the EPA.
(g) If an owner or operator is required to submit notifications or
reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (g), the
owner or operator
[[Page 43072]]
must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to the owner or
operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information the owner or operator
claims as CBI. Although the EPA does not expect persons to assert a
claim of CBI, if you an owner or operator wishes to assert a CBI claim
for some of the information in the report or notification, the owner or
operator must submit a complete file in the format specified in this
subpart, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following
the procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information claimed to be CBI. Information
not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims
must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public.
Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made
publicly available. The owner or operator must submit the same file
submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (g).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. Owners and operators who
do not have their own file sharing service and who require assistance
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments should email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(2) If an owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other files should be sent to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material
should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should
not show through the outer envelope.
(h) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, owners
and operators must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(i) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, owners and operators
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) An owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
17. Add subpart VVb to read as follows:
[[Page 43073]]
Subpart VVb--Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After April 25,
2023
Sec.
60.480b Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.481b Definitions.
60.482-1b Standards: General.
60.482-2b Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.
60.482-3b Standards: Compressors.
60.482-4b Standards: Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service.
60.482-5b Standards: Sampling connection systems.
60.482-6b Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.
60.482-7b Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid
service.
60.482-8b Standards: Pumps, valves, and connectors in heavy liquid
service and pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid
service.
60.482-9b Standards: Delay of repair.
60.482-10b Standards: Closed vent systems and control devices.
60.482-11b Standards: Connectors in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service.
60.483-1b Alternative standards for valves--allowable percentage of
valves leaking.
60.483-2b Alternative standards for valves--skip period leak
detection and repair.
60.484b Equivalence of means of emission limitation.
60.485b Test methods and procedures.
60.486b Recordkeeping requirements.
60.487b Reporting requirements.
60.488b Reconstruction.
60.489b List of chemicals produced by affected facilities.
Subpart VVb--Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After April
25, 2023
Sec. 60.480b Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a)(1) The provisions of this subpart apply to affected facilities
in the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry.
(2) The group of all equipment (defined in Sec. 60.481b) within a
process unit is an affected facility.
(b) Any affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after April 25,
2023, shall be subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(c) Addition or replacement of equipment for the purpose of process
improvement which is accomplished without a capital expenditure shall
not by itself be considered a modification under this subpart.
(d)(1) If an owner or operator applies for one or more of the
exemptions in this paragraph, then the owner or operator shall maintain
records as required in Sec. 60.486b(i).
(2) Any affected facility that has the design capacity to produce
less than 1,000 Mg/yr (1,102 ton/yr) of a chemical listed in Sec.
60.489 is exempt from Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b.
(3) If an affected facility produces heavy liquid chemicals only
from heavy liquid feed or raw materials, then it is exempt from
Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b.
(4) Any affected facility that produces beverage alcohol is exempt
from Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b.
(5) Any affected facility that has no equipment in volatile organic
compounds (VOC) service is exempt from Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through
60.482-11b.
(e)(1) Option to comply with 40 CFR part 65. (i) Owners or
operators may choose to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 65,
subpart F, to satisfy the requirements of Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through
60.487b for an affected facility. When choosing to comply with 40 CFR
part 65, subpart F, the requirements of Sec. Sec. 60.485b(d), (e), and
(f), and 60.486b(i) and (j) still apply. Other provisions applying to
an owner or operator who chooses to comply with 40 CFR part 65 are
provided in 40 CFR 65.1.
(ii) Owners or operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part 65,
subpart F must also comply with Sec. Sec. 60.1, 60.2, 60.5, 60.6,
60.7(a)(1) and (4), 60.14, 60.15, and 60.16 for that equipment. All
sections and paragraphs that are not mentioned in this paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) do not apply to owners or operators of equipment subject to
this subpart complying with 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, except that
provisions required to be met prior to implementing 40 CFR part 65
still apply. Owners and operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part
65, subpart F, must comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart A.
(2) Option to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. (i) Owners or
operators may choose to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H, to satisfy the requirements of Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through
60.487b for an affected facility. When choosing to comply with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H, the requirements of Sec. 60.482-7b, Sec.
60.485b(d), (e), and (f), and Sec. 60.486b(i) and (j) still apply.
(ii) Owners or operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H must also comply with Sec. Sec. 60.1, 60.2, 60.5, 60.6,
60.7(a)(1) and (4), 60.14, 60.15, and 60.16 for that equipment. All
sections and paragraphs that are not mentioned in this paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) do not apply to owners or operators of equipment subject to
this subpart complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, except that
provisions required to be met prior to implementing 40 CFR part 63
still apply. Owners and operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part
63, subpart H, must comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
(f) Owners and operators of flares that are subject to the flare
related requirements of this subpart and flare related requirements of
any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR part 61 or 63, may elect to
comply with the requirements in Sec. 60.619a, Sec. 60.669a, or Sec.
60.709a, in lieu of all flare related requirements in any other
regulation in this part or 40 CFR part 61 or 63.
Sec. 60.481b Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act (CAA) or in subpart A of
this part, and the following terms shall have the specific meanings
given them.
Capital expenditure means, in addition to the definition in Sec.
60.2, an expenditure for a physical or operational change to an
existing facility that:
(1) Exceeds P, the product of the facility's replacement cost, R,
and an adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, as
reflected by the following equation: P = R x A, where:
(i) The adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, is the
product of the percent of the replacement cost, Y, and the applicable
basic annual asset guideline repair allowance, B, divided by 100 as
reflected by the following equation:
Equation 1 to Capital Expenditure Paragraph (1)(i)
A = Y x (B / 100);
(ii) The percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y =
(CPI of date of construction/most recently available CPI of date of
project), where the ``CPI-U, U.S. city average, all items'' must be
used for each CPI value; and
(iii) The applicable basic annual asset guideline repair allowance,
B, is 12.5.
Closed-loop system means an enclosed system that returns process
fluid to the process.
Closed-purge system means a system or combination of systems and
portable containers to capture purged liquids. Containers for purged
liquids must be covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and
[[Page 43074]]
that is composed of hard-piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from a
piece or pieces of equipment to a control device or back to a process.
Connector means flanged, screwed, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of process equipment
or that close an opening in a pipe that could be connected to another
pipe. Joined fittings welded completely around the circumference of the
interface are not considered connectors for the purpose of this
regulation.
Control device means an enclosed combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare.
Distance piece means an open or enclosed casing through which the
piston rod travels, separating the compressor cylinder from the
crankcase.
Double block and bleed system means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can vent the line between the
two block valves.
Duct work means a conveyance system such as those commonly used for
heating and ventilation systems. It is often made of sheet metal and
often has sections connected by screws or crimping. Hard-piping is not
ductwork.
Equipment means each pump, compressor, pressure relief device,
sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, and flange
or other connector in VOC service and any devices or systems required
by this subpart.
First attempt at repair means to take action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of organic material to the atmosphere
using best practices.
Fuel gas means gases that are combusted to derive useful work or
heat.
Fuel gas system means the offsite and onsite piping and flow and
pressure control system that gathers gaseous stream(s) generated by
onsite operations, may blend them with other sources of gas, and
transports the gaseous stream for use as fuel gas in combustion devices
or in-process combustion equipment, such as furnaces and gas turbines,
either singly or in combination.
Hard-piping means pipe or tubing that is manufactured and properly
installed using good engineering judgment and standards such as ASME
B31.3, Process Piping (available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, P.O. Box 2300, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2300).
In gas/vapor service means that the piece of equipment contains
process fluid that is in the gaseous state at operating conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that the piece of equipment is not in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid service.
In light liquid service means that the piece of equipment contains
a liquid that meets the conditions specified in Sec. 60.485b(e).
In-situ sampling systems means nonextractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at an internal
pressure which is at least 5 kilopascals (kPa) (0.7 psia) below ambient
pressure.
In VOC service means that the piece of equipment contains or
contacts a process fluid that is at least 10 percent VOC by weight.
(The provisions of Sec. 60.485b(d) specify how to determine that a
piece of equipment is not in VOC service.)
Initial calibration value means the concentration measured during
the initial calibration at the beginning of each day required in Sec.
60.485b(b)(1), or the most recent calibration if the instrument is
recalibrated during the day (i.e., the calibration is adjusted) after a
calibration drift assessment.
Liquids dripping means any visible leakage from the seal including
spraying, misting, clouding, and ice formation.
Open-ended valve or line means any valve, except safety relief
valves, having one side of the valve seat in contact with process fluid
and one side open to the atmosphere, either directly or through open
piping.
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from
system pressure being greater than set pressure of the pressure relief
device.
Process improvement means routine changes made for safety and
occupational health requirements, for energy savings, for better
utility, for ease of maintenance and operation, for correction of
design deficiencies, for bottleneck removal, for changing product
requirements, or for environmental control.
Process unit means components assembled to produce, as intermediate
or final products, one or more of the chemicals listed in Sec. 60.489.
A process unit can operate independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient storage facilities for the
product.
Process unit shutdown means a work practice or operational
procedure that stops production from a process unit or part of a
process unit during which it is technically feasible to clear process
material from a process unit or part of a process unit consistent with
safety constraints and during which repairs can be accomplished. The
following are not considered process unit shutdowns:
(1) An unscheduled work practice or operational procedure that
stops production from a process unit or part of a process unit for less
than 24 hours.
(2) An unscheduled work practice or operational procedure that
would stop production from a process unit or part of a process unit for
a shorter period of time than would be required to clear the process
unit or part of the process unit of materials and start up the unit and
would result in greater emissions than delay of repair of leaking
components until the next scheduled process unit shutdown.
(3) The use of spare equipment and technically feasible bypassing
of equipment without stopping production.
Quarter means a 3-month period; the first quarter concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the 180 days following initial
startup.
Repaired means that equipment is adjusted, or otherwise altered, in
order to eliminate a leak as defined in the applicable sections of this
subpart and, except for leaks identified in accordance with Sec. Sec.
60.482-2b(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(6)(ii) and (iii), 60.482-3b(f), and 60.482-
10b(f)(1)(ii), is re-monitored as specified in Sec. 60.485b(b) to
verify that emissions from the equipment are below the applicable leak
definition.
Replacement cost means the capital needed to purchase all the
depreciable components in a facility.
Sampling connection system means an assembly of equipment within a
process unit used during periods of representative operation to take
samples of the process fluid. Equipment used to take nonroutine grab
samples is not considered a sampling connection system.
Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity such as temperature, pressure, flow rate,
pH, or liquid level.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
organic liquids that are used in the process as raw material
feedstocks, produced as intermediates or final products, or generated
as wastes. Storage vessel does not include vessels permanently attached
to motor vehicles, such as trucks, railcars, barges or ships.
Synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry means the
industry that produces, as intermediates or final products, one or more
of the chemicals listed in Sec. 60.489.
Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading
hoses, at a single loading rack, that are used to fill
[[Page 43075]]
tank trucks and/or railcars with organic liquids.
Volatile organic compounds or VOC means, for the purposes of this
subpart, any reactive organic compounds as defined in Sec. 60.2.
Sec. 60.482-1b Standards: General.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b or Sec. 60.480b(e) for all
equipment within 180 days of initial startup.
(b) Compliance with Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b will be
determined by review of records and reports, review of performance test
results, and inspection using the methods and procedures specified in
Sec. 60.485b.
(c)(1) An owner or operator may request a determination of
equivalence of a means of emission limitation to the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b, 60.482-3b, 60.482-5b, 60.482-6b, 60.482-7b,
60.482-8b, and 60.482-10b as provided in Sec. 60.484b.
(2) If the Administrator makes a determination that a means of
emission limitation is at least equivalent to the requirements of Sec.
60.482-2b, Sec. 60.482-3b, Sec. 60.482-5b, Sec. 60.482-6b, Sec.
60.482-7b, Sec. 60.482-8b, or Sec. 60.482-10b, an owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements of that determination.
(d) Equipment that is in vacuum service is excluded from the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b through 60.482-11b if it is
identified as required in Sec. 60.486b(e)(5).
(e) Equipment that an owner or operator designates as being in VOC
service less than 300 hr/yr is excluded from the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b through 60.482-11b if it is identified as required
in Sec. 60.486b(e)(6) and it meets any of the conditions specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) The equipment is in VOC service only during startup and
shutdown, excluding startup and shutdown between batches of the same
campaign for a batch process.
(2) The equipment is in VOC service only during process
malfunctions or other emergencies.
(3) The equipment is backup equipment that is in VOC service only
when the primary equipment is out of service.
(f)(1) If a dedicated batch process unit operates less than 365
days during a year, an owner or operator may monitor to detect leaks
from pumps, valves, and open-ended valves or lines at the frequency
specified in the following table instead of monitoring as specified in
Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b, 60.482-7b, and 60.483.2a:
Table 1 to Paragraph (f)(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equivalent monitoring frequency time in use
Operating time (percent of hours -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
during year) Monthly Quarterly Semiannually
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to <25.......................... Quarterly............ Annually............. Annually.
25 to <50......................... Quarterly............ Semiannually......... Annually.
50 to <75......................... Bimonthly............ Three quarters....... Semiannually.
75 to 100......................... Monthly.............. Quarterly............ Semiannually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Pumps and valves that are shared among two or more batch
process units that are subject to this subpart may be monitored at the
frequencies specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, provided the
operating time of all such process units is considered.
(3) The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section are not requirements for monitoring at specific intervals
and can be adjusted to accommodate process operations. An owner or
operator may monitor at any time during the specified monitoring period
(e.g., month, quarter, year), provided the monitoring is conducted at a
reasonable interval after completion of the last monitoring campaign.
Reasonable intervals are defined in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) When monitoring is conducted quarterly, monitoring events must
be separated by at least 30 calendar days.
(ii) When monitoring is conducted semiannually (i.e., once every 2
quarters), monitoring events must be separated by at least 60 calendar
days.
(iii) When monitoring is conducted in 3 quarters per year,
monitoring events must be separated by at least 90 calendar days.
(iv) When monitoring is conducted annually, monitoring events must
be separated by at least 120 calendar days.
(g) The standards in Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b apply
at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
As provided in Sec. 60.11(f), this provision supersedes the exemptions
for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in the general
provisions in subpart A of this part.
Sec. 60.482-2b Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.
(a)(1) Each pump in light liquid service shall be monitored monthly
to detect leaks by the methods specified in Sec. 60.485b(b), except as
provided in Sec. 60.482-1b(c) and (f) and paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)
of this section. A pump that begins operation in light liquid service
after the initial startup date for the process unit must be monitored
for the first time within 30 days after the end of its startup period,
except for a pump that replaces a leaking pump and except as provided
in Sec. 60.482-1b(c) and paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section.
(2) Each pump in light liquid service shall be checked by visual
inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal, except as provided in Sec. 60.482-1b(f).
(b)(1) The instrument reading that defines a leak is specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) 5,000 parts per million (ppm) or greater for pumps handling
polymerizing monomers;
(ii) 2,000 ppm or greater for all other pumps.
(2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump
seal, the owner or operator shall follow the procedure specified in
either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. This requirement
does not apply to a pump that was monitored after a previous weekly
inspection and the instrument reading was less than the concentration
specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, whichever is
applicable.
(i) Monitor the pump within 5 days as specified in Sec.
60.485b(b). A leak is detected if the instrument reading measured
during monitoring indicates a leak as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)
or (ii) of this section, whichever is applicable. The leak shall be
repaired using the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) Designate the visual indications of liquids dripping as a
leak, and repair the leak using either the procedures in
[[Page 43076]]
paragraph (c) of this section or by eliminating the visual indications
of liquids dripping.
(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected,
except as provided in Sec. 60.482-9b.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after each leak is detected. First attempts at repair
include, but are not limited to, the practices described in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, where practicable.
(i) Tightening the packing gland nuts;
(ii) Ensuring that the seal flush is operating at design pressure
and temperature.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that
includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, provided the requirements specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section are met.
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all
times greater than the pump stuffing box pressure; or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is
routed to a process or fuel gas system or connected by a closed vent
system to a control device that complies with the requirements of Sec.
60.482-10b; or
(iii) Equipped with a system that purges the barrier fluid into a
process stream with zero VOC emissions to the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system is in heavy liquid service or is not
in VOC service.
(3) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will
detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
(4)(i) Each pump is checked by visual inspection, each calendar
week, for indications of liquids dripping from the pump seals.
(ii) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump
seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the owner or operator shall
follow the procedure specified in either paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) or (B)
of this section prior to the next required inspection.
(A) Monitor the pump within 5 days as specified in Sec. 60.485b(b)
to determine if there is a leak of VOC in the barrier fluid. If an
instrument reading of 2,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(B) Designate the visual indications of liquids dripping as a leak.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) is checked
daily or is equipped with an audible alarm.
(ii) The owner or operator determines, based on design
considerations and operating experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
(iii) If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the
barrier fluid system, or both, based on the criterion established in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak is detected.
(6)(i) When a leak is detected pursuant to paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A)
of this section, it shall be repaired as specified in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(ii) A leak detected pursuant to paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this
section shall be repaired within 15 days of detection by eliminating
the conditions that activated the sensor.
(iii) A designated leak pursuant to paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(B) of this
section shall be repaired within 15 days of detection by eliminating
visual indications of liquids dripping.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(e)(1) and (2), for no detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, is exempt
from the requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this section
if the pump:
(1) Has no externally actuated shaft penetrating the pump housing;
(2) Is demonstrated to be operating with no detectable emissions as
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as measured by the methods specified in Sec. 60.485b(c);
and
(3) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section
initially upon designation, annually, and at other times requested by
the Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a closed vent system capable of
capturing and transporting any leakage from the seal or seals to a
process or to a fuel gas system or to a control device that complies
with the requirements of Sec. 60.482-10b, it is exempt from paragraphs
(a) through (e) of this section.
(g) Any pump that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(f)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor pump is exempt from the
monitoring and inspection requirements of paragraphs (a) and (d)(4)
through (6) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the pump demonstrates that the pump is
unsafe-to-monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to an
immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (a) of
this section; and
(2) The owner or operator of the pump has a written plan that
requires monitoring of the pump as frequently as practicable during
safe-to-monitor times, but not more frequently than the periodic
monitoring schedule otherwise applicable, and repair of the equipment
according to the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section if a leak
is detected.
(h) Any pump that is located within the boundary of an unmanned
plant site is exempt from the weekly visual inspection requirement of
paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(4) of this section, and the daily
requirements of paragraph (d)(5) of this section, provided that each
pump is visually inspected as often as practicable and at least
monthly.
Sec. 60.482-3b Standards: Compressors.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped with a seal system that
includes a barrier fluid system and that prevents leakage of VOC to the
atmosphere, except as provided in Sec. 60.482-1b(c) and paragraphs
(h), (i), and (j) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as required in paragraph (a) of
this section shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater
than the compressor stuffing box pressure; or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid system degassing reservoir that
is routed to a process or fuel gas system or connected by a closed vent
system to a control device that complies with the requirements of Sec.
60.482-10b; or
(3) Equipped with a system that purges the barrier fluid into a
process stream with zero VOC emissions to the atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid system shall be in heavy liquid service or
shall not be in VOC service.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as described in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be equipped with a sensor that will detect failure of the
seal system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(1) Each sensor as required in paragraph (d) of this section
shall be checked daily or shall be equipped with an audible alarm.
(2) The owner or operator shall determine, based on design
considerations and operating experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier
system, or both based on the criterion determined under paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, a leak is detected.
(g)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected,
except as provided in Sec. 60.482-9b.
[[Page 43077]]
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after each leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section, if it is equipped with a closed vent system to
capture and transport leakage from the compressor drive shaft back to a
process or fuel gas system or to a control device that complies with
the requirements of Sec. 60.482-10b, except as provided in paragraph
(i) of this section.
(i) Any compressor that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(e)(1) and (2), for no detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, is exempt
from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section if
the compressor:
(1) Is demonstrated to be operating with no detectable emissions,
as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as measured by the methods specified in Sec. 60.485b(c);
and
(2) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section
initially upon designation, annually, and at other times requested by
the Administrator.
(j) Any existing reciprocating compressor in a process unit which
becomes an affected facility under provisions of Sec. 60.14 or Sec.
60.15 is exempt from paragraphs (a) through (e) and (h) of this
section, provided the owner or operator demonstrates that recasting the
distance piece or replacing the compressor are the only options
available to bring the compressor into compliance with the provisions
of paragraphs (a) through (e) and (h) of this section.
Sec. 60.482-4b Standards: Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor
service.
(a) Except during pressure releases, each pressure relief device in
gas/vapor service shall be operated with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as determined by the methods specified in Sec. 60.485b(c).
(b)(1) After each pressure release, the pressure relief device
shall be returned to a condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days
after the pressure release, except as provided in Sec. 60.482-9b.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be monitored to confirm the conditions of
no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less
than 500 ppm above background, by the methods specified in Sec.
60.485b(c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is routed to a process or fuel
gas system or equipped with a closed vent system capable of capturing
and transporting leakage through the pressure relief device to a
control device as described in Sec. 60.482-10b is exempted from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d)(1) Any pressure relief device that is equipped with a rupture
disk upstream of the pressure relief device is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, provided the
owner or operator complies with the requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section.
(2) After each pressure release, a new rupture disk shall be
installed upstream of the pressure relief device as soon as
practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days after each pressure
release, except as provided in Sec. 60.482-9b.
Sec. 60.482-5b Standards: Sampling connection systems.
(a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a
closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system, except as provided in
Sec. 60.482-1b(c) and paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system as
required in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Gases displaced during filling of the sample container are not
required to be collected or captured.
(2) Containers that are part of a closed-purge system must be
covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
(3) Gases remaining in the tubing or piping between the closed-
purge system valve(s) and sample container valve(s) after the valves
are closed and the sample container is disconnected are not required to
be collected or captured.
(4) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system shall be
designed and operated to meet requirements in either paragraph
(b)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section.
(i) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line.
(ii) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid to a process.
(iii) Capture and transport all the purged process fluid to a
control device that complies with the requirements of Sec. 60.482-10b.
(iv) Collect, store, and transport the purged process fluid to any
of the following systems or facilities:
(A) A waste management unit as defined in 40 CFR 63.111, if the
waste management unit is subject to and operated in compliance with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, applicable to Group 1
wastewater streams;
(B) A treatment, storage, or disposal facility subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266;
(C) A facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to
manage municipal or industrial solid waste, if the process fluids are
not hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261;
(D) A waste management unit subject to and operated in compliance
with the treatment requirements of 40 CFR 61.348(a), provided all waste
management units that collect, store, or transport the purged process
fluid to the treatment unit are subject to and operated in compliance
with the management requirements of 40 CFR 61.343 through 40 CFR
61.347; or
(E) A device used to burn off-specification used oil for energy
recovery in accordance with 40 CFR part 279, subpart G, provided the
purged process fluid is not hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part
261.
(c) In-situ sampling systems and sampling systems without purges
are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
Sec. 60.482-6b Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.
(a)(1) Each open-ended valve or line shall be equipped with a cap,
blind flange, plug, or a second valve, except as provided in Sec.
60.482-1b(c) and paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve shall seal the
open end at all times except during operations requiring process fluid
flow through the open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line equipped with a second valve
shall be operated in a manner such that the valve on the process fluid
end is closed before the second valve is closed.
(c) When a double block-and-bleed system is being used, the bleed
valve or line may remain open during operations that require venting
the line between the block valves but shall comply with paragraph (a)
of this section at all other times.
(d) Open-ended valves or lines in an emergency shutdown system
which are designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section.
(e) Open-ended valves or lines containing materials which would
autocatalytically polymerize or would present an explosion, serious
overpressure, or other safety hazard if
[[Page 43078]]
capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section are exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
Sec. 60.482-7b Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service.
(a)(1) Each valve shall be monitored monthly to detect leaks by the
methods specified in Sec. 60.485b(b) and shall comply with paragraphs
(b) through (e) of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (f),
(g), and (h) of this section, Sec. 60.482-1b(c) and (f), and
Sec. Sec. 60.483-1b and 60.483-2b.
(2) A valve that begins operation in gas/vapor service or light
liquid service after the initial startup date for the process unit must
be monitored according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (ii), except for a
valve that replaces a leaking valve and except as provided in
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section, Sec. 60.482-1b(c), and
Sec. Sec. 60.483-1b and 60.483-2b.
(i) Monitor the valve as in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The
valve must be monitored for the first time within 30 days after the end
of its startup period to ensure proper installation.
(ii) If the existing valves in the process unit are monitored in
accordance with Sec. 60.483-1b or Sec. 60.483-2b, count the new valve
as leaking when calculating the percentage of valves leaking as
described in Sec. 60.483-2b(b)(5). If less than 2.0 percent of the
valves are leaking for that process unit, the valve must be monitored
for the first time during the next scheduled monitoring event for
existing valves in the process unit or within 90 days, whichever comes
first.
(b) If an instrument reading of 100 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(c)(1)(i) Any valve for which a leak is not detected for 2
successive months may be monitored the first month of every quarter,
beginning with the next quarter, until a leak is detected.
(ii) As an alternative to monitoring all of the valves in the first
month of a quarter, an owner or operator may elect to subdivide the
process unit into two or three subgroups of valves and monitor each
subgroup in a different month during the quarter, provided each
subgroup is monitored every 3 months. The owner or operator must keep
records of the valves assigned to each subgroup.
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall be monitored monthly
until a leak is not detected for 2 successive months.
(d)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected, except as provided in Sec. 60.482-9b.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the
following best practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts;
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts;
(4) Injection of lubricant into lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(e)(2), for no detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 100 ppm above background, is exempt
from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the valve:
(1) Has no external actuating mechanism in contact with the process
fluid,
(2) Is operated with emissions less than 100 ppm above background
as determined by the method specified in Sec. 60.485b(c), and
(3) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section
initially upon designation, annually, and at other times requested by
the Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(f)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve demonstrates that the valve
is unsafe to monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to
an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (a) of
this section, and
(2) The owner or operator of the valve adheres to a written plan
that requires monitoring of the valve as frequently as practicable
during safe-to-monitor times.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(f)(2), as a difficult-to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve demonstrates that the valve
cannot be monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel more
than 2 meters above a support surface.
(2) The process unit within which the valve is located either:
(i) Becomes an affected facility through Sec. 60.14 or Sec. 60.15
and was constructed on or before January 5, 1981; or
(ii) Has less than 3.0 percent of its total number of valves
designated as difficult-to-monitor by the owner or operator.
(3) The owner or operator of the valve follows a written plan that
requires monitoring of the valve at least once per calendar year.
Sec. 60.482-8b Standards: Pumps, valves, and connectors in heavy
liquid service and pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy
liquid service.
(a) If evidence of a potential leak is found by visual, audible,
olfactory, or any other detection method at pumps, valves, and
connectors in heavy liquid service and pressure relief devices in light
liquid or heavy liquid service, the owner or operator shall follow
either one of the following procedures:
(1) The owner or operator shall monitor the equipment within 5 days
by the method specified in Sec. 60.485b(b) and shall comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator shall eliminate the visual, audible,
olfactory, or other indication of a potential leak within 5 calendar
days of detection.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured,
a leak is detected.
(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected,
except as provided in Sec. 60.482-9b.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the
best practices described under Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b(c)(2) and 60.482-
7b(e).
Sec. 60.482-9b Standards: Delay of repair.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected
will be allowed if repair within 15 days is technically infeasible
without a process unit shutdown. Repair of this equipment shall occur
before the end of the next process unit shutdown. Monitoring to verify
repair must occur within 15 days after startup of the process unit.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment will be allowed for equipment
which is isolated from the process and which does not remain in VOC
service.
(c) Delay of repair for valves and connectors will be allowed if:
(1) The owner or operator demonstrates that emissions of purged
material resulting from immediate repair are greater than the fugitive
emissions likely to result from delay of repair, and
(2) When repair procedures are effected, the purged material is
collected and destroyed or recovered in a control device complying with
Sec. 60.482-10b.
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be allowed if:
[[Page 43079]]
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual mechanical seal system that
includes a barrier fluid system, and
(2) Repair is completed as soon as practicable, but not later than
6 months after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a process unit shutdown will be allowed
for a valve, if valve assembly replacement is necessary during the
process unit shutdown, valve assembly supplies have been depleted, and
valve assembly supplies had been sufficiently stocked before the
supplies were depleted. Delay of repair beyond the next process unit
shutdown will not be allowed unless the next process unit shutdown
occurs sooner than 6 months after the first process unit shutdown.
(f) When delay of repair is allowed for a leaking pump, valve, or
connector that remains in service, the pump, valve, or connector may be
considered to be repaired and no longer subject to delay of repair
requirements if two consecutive monthly monitoring instrument readings
are below the leak definition.
Sec. 60.482-10b Standards: Closed vent systems and control devices.
(a) Owners or operators of closed vent systems and control devices
used to comply with provisions of this subpart shall comply with the
provisions of this section.
(b) Vapor recovery systems (for example, condensers and absorbers)
shall be designed and operated to recover the VOC emissions vented to
them with an efficiency of 95 percent or greater, or to an exit
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv), whichever is
less stringent.
(c) Enclosed combustion devices shall be designed and operated to
reduce the VOC emissions vented to them with an efficiency of 95
percent or greater, or to an exit concentration of 20 ppmv, on a dry
basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent or to
provide a minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds at a minimum
temperature of 816 [deg]C.
(d) Flares used to comply with this subpart shall comply with the
requirements of Sec. 60.18.
(e) Owners or operators of control devices used to comply with the
provisions of this subpart shall monitor these control devices to
ensure that they are operated and maintained in conformance with their
designs.
(f) Except as provided in paragraphs (i) through (k) of this
section, each closed vent system shall be inspected according to the
procedures and schedule specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in
Sec. 60.485b(b); and
(2) Conduct annual inspections according to the procedures in Sec.
60.485b(b).
(3) Conduct annual visual inspections for visible, audible, or
olfactory indications of leaks.
(g) Leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500
ppmv above background or by visual inspections, shall be repaired as
soon as practicable except as provided in paragraph (h) of this
section.
(1) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after the leak is detected.
(2) Repair shall be completed no later than 15 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(h) Delay of repair of a closed vent system for which leaks have
been detected is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible
without a process unit shutdown or if the owner or operator determines
that emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater than
the fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of
such equipment shall be complete by the end of the next process unit
shutdown.
(i) If a vapor collection system or closed vent system is operated
under a vacuum, it is exempt from the inspection requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(j) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as
described in paragraph (l)(1) of this section, as unsafe to inspect are
exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this section if they comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) The owner or operator determines that the equipment is unsafe
to inspect because inspecting personnel would be exposed to an imminent
or potential danger as a consequence of complying with paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this section; and
(2) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires
inspection of the equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-
to-inspect times.
(k) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as
described in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, as difficult to inspect
are exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and
(2) of this section if they comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) The owner or operator determines that the equipment cannot be
inspected without elevating the inspecting personnel more than 2 meters
above a support surface; and
(2) The process unit within which the closed vent system is located
becomes an affected facility through Sec. Sec. 60.14 or 60.15, or the
owner or operator designates less than 3.0 percent of the total number
of closed vent system equipment as difficult to inspect; and
(3) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires
inspection of the equipment at least once every 5 years. A closed vent
system is exempt from inspection if it is operated under a vacuum.
(l) The owner or operator shall record the information specified in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system that are
designated as unsafe to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment is
unsafe to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(2) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system that are
designated as difficult to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment
is difficult to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(3) For each inspection during which a leak is detected, a record
of the information specified in Sec. 60.486b(c).
(4) For each inspection conducted in accordance with Sec.
60.485b(b) during which no leaks are detected, a record that the
inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a statement
that no leaks were detected.
(5) For each visual inspection conducted in accordance with
paragraph (f)(3) of this section during which no leaks are detected, a
record that the inspection was performed, the date of the inspection,
and a statement that no leaks were detected.
(m) Closed vent systems and control devices used to comply with
provisions of this subpart shall be operated at all times when
emissions may be vented to them.
Sec. 60.482-11b Standards: Connectors in gas/vapor service and in
light liquid service.
(a) The owner or operator shall initially monitor all connectors in
the process unit for leaks by the later of either 12 months after the
compliance date or 12 months after initial startup. If all connectors
in the process unit have been monitored for leaks prior to the
compliance date, no initial monitoring is required provided either no
process changes have been made since the monitoring or the owner or
operator can determine that the results of the monitoring, with or
without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
[[Page 43080]]
compliance despite process changes. If required to monitor because of a
process change, the owner or operator is required to monitor only those
connectors involved in the process change.
(b) Except as allowed in Sec. 60.482-1b(c), Sec. 60.482-10b, or
as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator
shall monitor all connectors in gas and vapor and light liquid service
as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) of this section.
(1) The connectors shall be monitored to detect leaks by the method
specified in Sec. 60.485b(b) and, as applicable, Sec. 60.485b(c).
(2) If an instrument reading greater than or equal to 500 ppm is
measured, a leak is detected.
(3) The owner or operator shall perform monitoring, subsequent to
the initial monitoring required in paragraph (a) of this section, as
specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, and
shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3)(iv) and (v) of
this section. The required period in which monitoring must be conducted
shall be determined from paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section using the monitoring results from the preceding monitoring
period. The percent leaking connectors shall be calculated as specified
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(i) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was
greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, then monitor within 12 months (1
year).
(ii) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was
greater than or equal to 0.25 percent but less than 0.5 percent, then
monitor within 4 years. An owner or operator may comply with the
requirements of this paragraph by monitoring at least 40 percent of the
connectors within 2 years of the start of the monitoring period,
provided all connectors have been monitored by the end of the 4-year
monitoring period.
(iii) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was
less than 0.25 percent, then monitor as provided in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and either paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) or
(C) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) An owner or operator shall monitor at least 50 percent of the
connectors within 4 years of the start of the monitoring period.
(B) If the percent of leaking connectors calculated from the
monitoring results in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section is
greater than or equal to 0.35 percent of the monitored connectors, the
owner or operator shall monitor as soon as practical, but within the
next 6 months, all connectors that have not yet been monitored during
the monitoring period. At the conclusion of monitoring, a new
monitoring period shall be started pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, based on the percent of leaking connectors within the total
monitored connectors.
(C) If the percent of leaking connectors calculated from the
monitoring results in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section is less
than 0.35 percent of the monitored connectors, the owner or operator
shall monitor all connectors that have not yet been monitored within 8
years of the start of the monitoring period.
(iv) If, during the monitoring conducted pursuant to paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, a connector is found to be
leaking, it shall be re-monitored once within 90 days after repair to
confirm that it is not leaking.
(v) The owner or operator shall keep a record of the start date and
end date of each monitoring period under this section for each process
unit.
(c) For use in determining the monitoring frequency, as specified
in paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) of this section, the percent leaking
connectors as used in paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) of this section shall
be calculated by using the following equation:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (c)
%CL = CL/Ct * 100
Where:
%CL = Percent of leaking connectors as determined through
periodic monitoring required in paragraphs (a) and (b)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
CL = Number of connectors measured at 500 ppm or greater,
by the method specified in Sec. 60.485b(b).
Ct = Total number of monitored connectors in the process
unit or affected facility.
(d) When a leak is detected pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in
Sec. 60.482-9b. A first attempt at repair as defined in this subpart
shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after the leak is detected.
(e) Any connector that is designated, as described in Sec.
60.486b(f)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor connector is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the connector demonstrates that the
connector is unsafe-to-monitor because monitoring personnel would be
exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; and
(2) The owner or operator of the connector has a written plan that
requires monitoring of the connector as frequently as practicable
during safe-to-monitor times but not more frequently than the periodic
monitoring schedule otherwise applicable, and repair of the equipment
according to the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section if a leak
is detected.
(f)(1) Any connector that is inaccessible or that is ceramic or
ceramic-lined (e.g., porcelain, glass, or glass-lined), is exempt from
the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
from the leak repair requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, and
from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.1038
and 63.1039. An inaccessible connector is one that meets any of the
provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section, as applicable:
(i) Buried;
(ii) Insulated in a manner that prevents access to the connector by
a monitor probe;
(iii) Obstructed by equipment or piping that prevents access to the
connector by a monitor probe;
(iv) Unable to be reached from a wheeled scissor-lift or hydraulic-
type scaffold that would allow access to connectors up to 7.6 meters
(25 feet) above the ground;
(v) Inaccessible because it would require elevating the monitoring
personnel more than 2 meters (7 feet) above a permanent support surface
or would require the erection of scaffold; or
(vi) Not able to be accessed at any time in a safe manner to
perform monitoring. Unsafe access includes, but is not limited to, the
use of a wheeled scissor-lift on unstable or uneven terrain, the use of
a motorized man-lift basket in areas where an ignition potential
exists, or access would require near proximity to hazards such as
electrical lines, or would risk damage to equipment.
(2) If any inaccessible, ceramic, or ceramic-lined connector is
observed by visual, audible, olfactory, or other means to be leaking,
the visual, audible, olfactory, or other indications of a leak to the
atmosphere shall be eliminated as soon as practical.
(g) Except for instrumentation systems and inaccessible, ceramic,
or ceramic-lined connectors meeting the provisions of paragraph (f) of
this section, identify the connectors subject to the requirements of
this subpart. Connectors need not be individually identified if all
[[Page 43081]]
connectors in a designated area or length of pipe subject to the
provisions of this subpart are identified as a group, and the number of
connectors subject is indicated.
Sec. 60.483-1b Alternative standards for valves--allowable percentage
of valves leaking.
(a) An owner or operator may elect to comply with an allowable
percentage of valves leaking of equal to or less than 2.0 percent.
(b) The following requirements shall be met if an owner or operator
wishes to comply with an allowable percentage of valves leaking:
(1) An owner or operator must notify the Administrator that the
owner or operator has elected to comply with the allowable percentage
of valves leaking before implementing this alternative standard, as
specified in Sec. 60.487b(d).
(2) A performance test as specified in paragraph (c) of this
section shall be conducted initially upon designation, annually, and at
other times requested by the Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accordance
with Sec. 60.482-7b(d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be conducted in the following manner:
(1) All valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service within the
affected facility shall be monitored within 1 week by the methods
specified in Sec. 60.485b(b).
(2) If an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(3) The leak percentage shall be determined by dividing the number
of valves for which leaks are detected by the number of valves in gas/
vapor and light liquid service within the affected facility.
(d) Owners and operators who elect to comply with this alternative
standard shall not have an affected facility with a leak percentage
greater than 2.0 percent, determined as described in Sec. 60.485b(h).
Sec. 60.483-2b Alternative standards for valves--skip period leak
detection and repair.
(a)(1) An owner or operator may elect to comply with one of the
alternative work practices specified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of
this section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify the Administrator before
implementing one of the alternative work practices, as specified in
Sec. 60.487a(d).
(b)(1) An owner or operator shall comply initially with the
requirements for valves in gas/vapor service and valves in light liquid
service, as described in Sec. 60.482-7b.
(2) After 2 consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the
percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0, an owner or
operator may begin to skip 1 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.
(3) After 5 consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the
percent of valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0, an owner or
operator may begin to skip 3 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service.
(4) If the percent of valves leaking is greater than 2.0, the owner
or operator shall comply with the requirements as described in Sec.
60.482-7b but can again elect to use this section.
(5) The percent of valves leaking shall be determined as described
in Sec. 60.485b(h).
(6) An owner or operator must keep a record of the percent of
valves found leaking during each leak detection period.
(7) A valve that begins operation in gas/vapor service or light
liquid service after the initial startup date for a process unit
following one of the alternative standards in this section must be
monitored in accordance with Sec. 60.482-7b(a)(2)(i) or (ii) before
the provisions of this section can be applied to that valve.
Sec. 60.484b Equivalence of means of emission limitation.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart may apply to the Administrator for determination of equivalence
for any means of emission limitation that achieves a reduction in
emissions of VOC at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of
VOC achieved by the controls required in this subpart.
(b) Determination of equivalence to the equipment, design, and
operational requirements of this subpart will be evaluated by the
following guidelines:
(1) Each owner or operator applying for an equivalence
determination shall be responsible for collecting and verifying test
data to demonstrate equivalence of means of emission limitation.
(2) The Administrator will compare test data for demonstrating
equivalence of the means of emission limitation to test data for the
equipment, design, and operational requirements.
(3) The Administrator may condition the approval of equivalence on
requirements that may be necessary to assure operation and maintenance
to achieve the same emission reduction as the equipment, design, and
operational requirements.
(c) Determination of equivalence to the required work practices in
this subpart will be evaluated by the following guidelines:
(1) Each owner or operator applying for a determination of
equivalence shall be responsible for collecting and verifying test data
to demonstrate equivalence of an equivalent means of emission
limitation.
(2) For each affected facility for which a determination of
equivalence is requested, the emission reduction achieved by the
required work practice shall be demonstrated.
(3) For each affected facility, for which a determination of
equivalence is requested, the emission reduction achieved by the
equivalent means of emission limitation shall be demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator applying for a determination of
equivalence shall commit in writing to work practice(s) that provide
for emission reductions equal to or greater than the emission
reductions achieved by the required work practice.
(5) The Administrator will compare the demonstrated emission
reduction for the equivalent means of emission limitation to the
demonstrated emission reduction for the required work practices and
will consider the commitment in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(6) The Administrator may condition the approval of equivalence on
requirements that may be necessary to assure operation and maintenance
to achieve the same emission reduction as the required work practice.
(d) An owner or operator may offer a unique approach to demonstrate
the equivalence of any equivalent means of emission limitation.
(e)(1) After a request for determination of equivalence is
received, the Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal
Register and provide the opportunity for public hearing if the
Administrator judges that the request may be approved.
(2) After notice and opportunity for public hearing, the
Administrator will determine the equivalence of a means of emission
limitation and will publish the determination in the Federal Register.
(3) Any equivalent means of emission limitations approved under
this section shall constitute a required work practice, equipment,
design, or operational standard within the meaning of section 111(h)(1)
of the CAA.
(f)(1) Manufacturers of equipment used to control equipment leaks
of VOC may apply to the Administrator for determination of equivalence
for any
[[Page 43082]]
equivalent means of emission limitation that achieves a reduction in
emissions of VOC achieved by the equipment, design, and operational
requirements of this subpart.
(2) The Administrator will make an equivalence determination
according to the provisions of paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section.
Sec. 60.485b Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec. 60.8, the
owner or operator shall use as reference methods and procedures the
test methods in appendix A to this part or other methods and procedures
as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 60.8(b).
(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
standards in Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b through 60.482-11b, 60.483a, and
60.484b as follows:
(1) Method 21 of appendix A-7 to this part shall be used to
determine the presence of leaking sources. The instrument shall be
calibrated before use each day of its use by the procedures specified
in Method 21. The following calibration gases shall be used:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration no
more than 2,000 ppm greater than the leak definition concentration of
the equipment monitored. If the monitoring instrument's design allows
for multiple calibration scales, then the lower scale shall be
calibrated with a calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm
above the concentration specified as a leak, and the highest scale
shall be calibrated with a calibration gas that is approximately equal
to 10,000 ppm. If only one scale on an instrument will be used during
monitoring, the owner or operator need not calibrate the scales that
will not be used during that day's monitoring.
(2) A calibration drift assessment shall be performed, at a
minimum, at the end of each monitoring day. Check the instrument using
the same calibration gas(es) that were used to calibrate the instrument
before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21 of appendix A-
7 to this part, section 10.1, except do not adjust the meter readout to
correspond to the calibration gas value. Record the instrument reading
for each scale used as specified in Sec. 60.486b(e)(8). Divide the
arithmetic difference of the initial and post-test calibration response
by the corresponding calibration gas value for each scale and multiply
by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
(i) If a calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of
more than 10 percent, then all equipment with instrument readings
between the appropriate leak definition and the leak definition
multiplied by (100 minus the percent of negative drift/divided by 100)
that was monitored since the last calibration must be re-monitored.
(ii) If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then, at the
owner/operator's discretion, all equipment with instrument readings
above the appropriate leak definition and below the leak definition
multiplied by (100 plus the percent of positive drift/divided by 100)
monitored since the last calibration may be re-monitored.
(c) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the no-
detectable-emission standards in Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b(e), 60.482-3b(i),
60.482-4b, 60.482-7b(f), and 60.482-10b(e) as follows:
(1) The requirements of paragraph (b) shall apply.
(2) Method 21 of appendix A-7 to this part shall be used to
determine the background level. All potential leak interfaces shall be
traversed as close to the interface as possible. The arithmetic
difference between the maximum concentration indicated by the
instrument and the background level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
(d) The owner or operator shall test each piece of equipment unless
they demonstrate that a process unit is not in VOC service, i.e., that
the VOC content would never be reasonably expected to exceed 10 percent
by weight. For purposes of this demonstration, the following methods
and procedures shall be used:
(1) Procedures that conform to the general methods in ASTM E168-16
(Reapproved 2023), E169-16 (Reapproved 2022), or E260-96 (Reapproved
2019) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) shall be used to
determine the percent VOC content in the process fluid that is
contained in or contacts a piece of equipment.
(2) Organic compounds that are considered by the Administrator to
have negligible photochemical reactivity may be excluded from the total
quantity of organic compounds in determining the VOC content of the
process fluid.
(3) Engineering judgment may be used to estimate the VOC content,
if a piece of equipment had not been shown previously to be in service.
If the Administrator disagrees with the judgment, paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section shall be used to resolve the disagreement.
(e) The owner or operator shall demonstrate that a piece of
equipment is in light liquid service by showing that all the following
conditions apply:
(1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic components is
greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 [deg]C (1.2 in. H2O at 68
[deg]F). Standard reference texts or ASTM D2879-23 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17) shall be used to determine the vapor
pressures.
(2) The total concentration of the pure organic components having a
vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 [deg]C (1.2 in.
H2O at 68 [deg]F) is equal to or greater than 20 percent by
weight.
(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions.
(f) Samples used in conjunction with paragraphs (d), (e), and (g)
of this section shall be representative of the process fluid that is
contained in or contacts the equipment or the gas being combusted in
the flare.
(g) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
standards of flares as follows:
(1) Method 22 of appendix A-7 to this part shall be used to
determine visible emissions.
(2) A thermocouple or any other equivalent device shall be used to
monitor the presence of a pilot flame in the flare.
(3) The maximum permitted velocity for air assisted flares shall be
computed using the following equation:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (g)(3)
Vmax = K1 + K2HT
Where:
Vmax = Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec (ft/sec).
HT = Net heating value of the gas being combusted, MJ/scm
(Btu/scf).
K1 = 8.706 m/sec (metric units) = 28.56 ft/sec (English
units).
K2 = 0.7084 m\4\/(MJ-sec) (metric units) = 0.087 ft\4\/
(Btu-sec) (English units).
(4) The net heating value (HT) of the gas being combusted in a
flare shall be computed using the following equation:
Equation 2 to Paragraph (g)(4)
[[Page 43083]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.025
Where:
K = Conversion constant, 1.740 x 10-7 (g-mole)(MJ)/(ppm-
scm-kcal) (metric units) = 4.674 x 10-6 [(g-mole)(Btu)/
(ppm-scf-kcal)] (English units).
Ci = Concentration of sample component ``i,'' ppm
Hi = net heat of combustion of sample component ``i'' at
25 [deg]C and 760 mm Hg (77 [deg]F and 14.7 psi), kcal/g-mole.
(5) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part and ASTM D1945-14
(Reapproved 2019) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) shall be
used to determine the concentration of sample component ``i.'' ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) may be
used in lieu of Method 18, under the conditions specified in paragraphs
(g)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If the target compounds are all known and are all listed in
Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as measurable.
(ii) ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and ethane.
(iii) ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total VOC method.
(6) ASTM D240-19 or D4809-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17) shall be used to determine the net heat of combustion of
component ``i'' if published values are not available or cannot be
calculated.
(7) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-7 to this part, as
appropriate, shall be used to determine the actual exit velocity of a
flare. If needed, the unobstructed (free) cross-sectional area of the
flare tip shall be used.
(h) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with Sec.
60.483-1b or Sec. 60.483-2b as follows:
(1) The percent of valves leaking shall be determined using the
following equation:
Equation 3 to Paragraph (h)(1)
%VL = (VL/VT) * 100
Where:
%VL = Percent leaking valves.
VL = Number of valves found leaking.
VT = The sum of the total number of valves monitored.
(2) The total number of valves monitored shall include difficult-
to-monitor and unsafe-to-monitor valves only during the monitoring
period in which those valves are monitored.
(3) The number of valves leaking shall include valves for which
repair has been delayed.
(4) Any new valve that is not monitored within 30 days of being
placed in service shall be included in the number of valves leaking and
the total number of valves monitored for the monitoring period in which
the valve is placed in service.
(5) If the process unit has been subdivided in accordance with
Sec. 60.482-7b(c)(1)(ii), the sum of valves found leaking during a
monitoring period includes all subgroups.
(6) The total number of valves monitored does not include a valve
monitored to verify repair.
Sec. 60.486b Recordkeeping requirements.
(a)(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this
section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than one affected facility subject
to the provisions of this subpart may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these facilities in one recordkeeping system if the
system identifies each record by each facility.
(3) The owner or operator shall record the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for each monitoring
event required by Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b, 60.482-3b, 60.482-7b, 60.482-
8b, 60.482-11b, and 60.483-2b.
(i) Monitoring instrument identification.
(ii) Operator identification.
(iii) Equipment identification.
(iv) Date of monitoring.
(v) Instrument reading.
(b) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.482-
2b, 60.482-3b, 60.482-7b, 60.482-8b, 60.482-11b, and 60.483-2b, the
following requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible identification, marked with
the equipment identification number, shall be attached to the leaking
equipment.
(2) The identification on a valve may be removed after it has been
monitored for 2 successive months as specified in Sec. 60.482-7b(c)
and no leak has been detected during those 2 months.
(3) The identification on a connector may be removed after it has
been monitored as specified in Sec. 60.482-11b(b)(3)(iv) and no leak
has been detected during that monitoring.
(4) The identification on equipment, except on a valve or
connector, may be removed after it has been repaired.
(c) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.482-
2b, 60.482-3b, 60.482-7b, 60.482-8b, 60.482-11b, and 60.483-2b, the
following information shall be recorded in a log and shall be kept for
2 years in a readily accessible location:
(1) The instrument and operator identification numbers and the
equipment identification number, except when indications of liquids
dripping from a pump are designated as a leak.
(2) The date the leak was detected and the dates of each attempt to
repair the leak.
(3) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak.
(4) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of appendix A-
7 of this part at the time the leak is successfully repaired or
determined to be nonrepairable, except when a pump is repaired by
eliminating indications of liquids dripping.
(5) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is
not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or operator (or designate) whose
decision it was that repair could not be effected without a process
shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak is
not repaired within 15 days.
(8) Dates of process unit shutdowns that occur while the equipment
is unrepaired.
(9) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(d) The following information pertaining to the design requirements
for closed vent systems and control devices described in Sec. 60.482-
10b shall be recorded and kept in a readily accessible location:
(1) Detailed schematics, design specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
(2) The dates and descriptions of any changes in the design
specifications.
(3) A description of the parameter or parameters monitored, as
required in Sec. 60.482-10b(e), to ensure that control devices are
operated and maintained in conformance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or parameters) was selected for the
monitoring.
(4) Periods when the closed vent systems and control devices
required in Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b, 60.482-3b, 60.482-4b, and 60.482-5b
are not operated as designed, including periods when a flare pilot
light does not have a flame.
(5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of the closed vent systems and
control devices required in Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b, 60.482-3b, 60.482-4b,
and 60.482-5b.
[[Page 43084]]
(e) The following information pertaining to all equipment subject
to the requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.482-1b to 60.482-11b shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for equipment subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers for equipment that are
designated for no detectable emissions under the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b(e), 60.482-3b(i), and 60.482-7b(f).
(ii) The designation of equipment as subject to the requirements of
Sec. 60.482-2b(e), Sec. 60.482-3b(i), or Sec. 60.482-7b(f) shall be
signed by the owner or operator. Alternatively, the owner or operator
may establish a mechanism with their permitting authority that
satisfies this requirement.
(3) A list of equipment identification numbers for pressure relief
devices required to comply with Sec. 60.482-4b.
(4)(i) The dates of each compliance test as required in Sec. Sec.
60.482-2b(e), 60.482-3b(i), 60.482-4b, and 60.482-7b(f).
(ii) The background level measured during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading measured at the equipment
during each compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for equipment in vacuum
service.
(6) A list of identification numbers for equipment that the owner
or operator designates as operating in VOC service less than 300 hr/yr
in accordance with Sec. 60.482-1b(e), a description of the conditions
under which the equipment is in VOC service, and rationale supporting
the designation that it is in VOC service less than 300 hr/yr.
(7) The date and results of the weekly visual inspection for
indications of liquids dripping from pumps in light liquid service.
(8) Records of the information specified in paragraphs (e)(8)(i)
through (vi) of this section for monitoring instrument calibrations
conducted according to sections 8.1.2 and 10 of Method 21 of appendix
A-7 of this part and Sec. 60.485b(b).
(i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing the
calibration.
(ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification date,
and certified concentration.
(iii) Instrument scale(s) used.
(iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the meter
readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the calibration gas
value in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 21 of appendix A-7 of
this part.
(v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required by Sec.
60.485b(b)(2) (i.e., instrument reading for calibration at end of
monitoring day and the calculated percent difference from the initial
calibration value).
(vi) If an owner or operator makes their own calibration gas, a
description of the procedure used.
(9) The connector monitoring schedule for each process unit as
specified in Sec. 60.482-11b(b)(3)(v).
(10) Records of each release from a pressure relief device subject
to Sec. 60.482-4b.
(f) The following information pertaining to all valves subject to
the requirements of Sec. 60.482-7b(g) and (h), all pumps subject to
the requirements of Sec. 60.482-2b(g), and all connectors subject to
the requirements of Sec. 60.482-11b(e) shall be recorded in a log that
is kept in a readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for valves, pumps, and
connectors that are designated as unsafe-to-monitor, an explanation for
each valve, pump, or connector stating why the valve, pump, or
connector is unsafe-to-monitor, and the plan for monitoring each valve,
pump, or connector.
(2) A list of identification numbers for valves that are designated
as difficult-to-monitor, an explanation for each valve stating why the
valve is difficult-to-monitor, and the schedule for monitoring each
valve.
(g) The following information shall be recorded for valves
complying with Sec. 60.483-2b:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves found leaking during each monitoring
period.
(h) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is
kept in a readily accessible location:
(1) Design criterion required in Sec. Sec. 60.482-2b(d)(5) and
60.482-3b(e)(2) and explanation of the design criterion; and
(2) Any changes to this criterion and the reasons for the changes.
(i) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is
kept in a readily accessible location for use in determining exemptions
as provided in Sec. 60.480b(d):
(1) An analysis demonstrating the design capacity of the affected
facility,
(2) A statement listing the feed or raw materials and products from
the affected facilities and an analysis demonstrating whether these
chemicals are heavy liquids or beverage alcohol, and
(3) An analysis demonstrating that equipment is not in VOC service.
(j) Information and data used to demonstrate that a piece of
equipment is not in VOC service shall be recorded in a log that is kept
in a readily accessible location.
(k) The provisions of Sec. 60.7(b) and (d) do not apply to
affected facilities subject to this subpart.
(l) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format.
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
Sec. 60.487b Reporting requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator beginning
6 months after the initial startup date. Beginning on July 15, 2024, or
once the report template for this subpart has been available on the
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1 year, whichever date is later, submit all subsequent
reports using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website for this subpart and following the procedure specified in
paragraph (g) of this section. 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. All semiannual reports must include the
following general information: company name, address (including
county), and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
(b) The initial semiannual report to the Administrator shall
include the following information:
(1) Process unit identification.
(2) Number of valves subject to the requirements of Sec. 60.482-
7b, excluding those valves designated for no detectable emissions under
the provisions of Sec. 60.482-7b(f).
(3) Number of pumps subject to the requirements of Sec. 60.482-2b,
excluding those pumps designated for no detectable emissions under the
provisions of Sec. 60.482-2b(e) and those pumps complying with Sec.
60.482-2b(f).
(4) Number of compressors subject to the requirements of Sec.
60.482-3b, excluding those compressors designated for no detectable
emissions under the provisions of Sec. 60.482-3b(i) and those
compressors complying with Sec. 60.482-3b(h).
[[Page 43085]]
(5) Number of connectors subject to the requirements of Sec.
60.482-11b.
(c) All semiannual reports to the Administrator shall include the
following information, summarized from the information in Sec.
60.486b:
(1) Process unit identification.
(2) For each month during the semiannual reporting period,
(i) Number of valves for which leaks were detected as described in
Sec. 60.482-7b(b) or Sec. 60.483-2b,
(ii) Number of valves for which leaks were not repaired as required
in Sec. 60.482-7b(d)(1),
(iii) Number of pumps for which leaks were detected as described in
Sec. 60.482-2b(b), (d)(4)(ii)(A) or (B), or (d)(5)(iii),
(iv) Number of pumps for which leaks were not repaired as required
in Sec. 60.482-2b(c)(1) and (d)(6),
(v) Number of compressors for which leaks were detected as
described in Sec. 60.482-3b(f),
(vi) Number of compressors for which leaks were not repaired as
required in Sec. 60.482-3b(g)(1),
(vii) Number of connectors for which leaks were detected as
described in Sec. 60.482-11b(b)
(viii) Number of connectors for which leaks were not repaired as
required in Sec. 60.482-11b(d), and
(ix)-(x) [Reserved]
(xi) The facts that explain each delay of repair and, where
appropriate, why a process unit shutdown was technically infeasible.
(3) Dates of process unit shutdowns which occurred within the
semiannual reporting period.
(4) Revisions to items reported according to paragraph (b) of this
section if changes have occurred since the initial report or subsequent
revisions to the initial report.
(d) An owner or operator electing to comply with the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 60.483-1b or 60.483-2b shall notify the Administrator of the
alternative standard selected 90 days before implementing either of the
provisions.
(e) An owner or operator shall report the results of all
performance tests in accordance with Sec. 60.8. The provisions of
Sec. 60.8(d) do not apply to affected facilities subject to the
provisions of this subpart except that an owner or operator must notify
the Administrator of the schedule for the initial performance tests at
least 30 days before the initial performance tests.
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section
remain in force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement
authority to a state under section 111(c) of the CAA, approves
reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance
surveillance adopted by such state. In that event, affected sources
within the state will be relieved of the obligation to comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided
that they comply with the requirements established by the state. The
EPA will not approve a waiver of electronic reporting to the EPA in
delegating enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting to the EPA
cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph cannot
be used to relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the
requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section
to the EPA.
(g) If you are required to submit notifications or reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph (g), you must
submit notifications or reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information in the report or notification, you must submit
a complete file in the format specified in this subpart, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark the part or all
of the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as
CBI may be authorized for public release without prior notice.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c),
emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier
in this paragraph (g).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. If assistance is needed
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the
attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other
files should be sent to the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead.
The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked.
Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(h) If you are required to electronically submit notifications or
reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA
system outage for failure to timely comply with that reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
[[Page 43086]]
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit notifications or
reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement.
To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
Sec. 60.488b Reconstruction.
For the purposes of this subpart:
(a) The cost of the following frequently replaced components of the
facility shall not be considered in calculating either the ``fixed
capital cost of the new components'' or the ``fixed capital costs that
would be required to construct a comparable new facility'' under Sec.
60.15: Pump seals, nuts and bolts, rupture disks, and packings.
(b) Under Sec. 60.15, the ``fixed capital cost of new components''
includes the fixed capital cost of all depreciable components (except
components specified in Sec. 60.488b(a)) which are or will be replaced
pursuant to all continuous programs of component replacement which are
commenced within any 2-year period following the applicability date for
the appropriate subpart. (See the ``Applicability and designation of
affected facility'' section of the appropriate subpart.) For purposes
of this paragraph, ``commenced'' means that an owner or operator has
undertaken a continuous program of component replacement or that an
owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program
of component replacement.
Sec. 60.489b List of chemicals produced by affected facilities.
Process units that produce, as intermediates or final products,
chemicals listed in Sec. 60.489 are covered under this subpart. The
applicability date for process units producing one or more of these
chemicals is April 25, 2023.
0
18. Revise the heading of subpart III to read as follows:
Subpart III--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) Air Oxidation Unit Processes After October 21,
1983, and on or Before April 25, 2023
0
19. Amend Sec. 60.610 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.610 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(b) The affected facility is any of the following for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after October
21, 1983, and on or before April 25, 2023:
* * * * *
(e) Owners and operators of flares that are subject to the flare
related requirements of this subpart and flare related requirements of
any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR part 61 or 63, may elect to
comply with the requirements in Sec. 60.619a in lieu of all flare
related requirements in any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR
part 61 or 63.
0
20. Amend Sec. 60.611 by revising the definition of ``Flame zone'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.611 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler
or process heater occupied by the flame envelope.
* * * * *
0
21. Amend Sec. 60.613 by revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(2)(i), and
(e)(3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.613 Monitoring of emissions and operations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A scrubbing liquid temperature monitoring device having an
accuracy of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored
expressed in degrees Celsius or 0.5 [deg]C, whichever is greater, and a
specific gravity monitoring device having an accuracy of 0.02 specific
gravity units, each equipped with a continuous recorder; or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) A condenser exit (product side) temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder and having an accuracy of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored expressed in degrees
Celsius or 0.5 [deg]C, whichever is greater; or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) An integrating steam flow monitoring device having an accuracy
of 10 percent, and a carbon bed temperature monitoring device having an
accuracy of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored
expressed in degrees Celsius or 0.5 [deg]C, whichever is
greater, both equipped with a continuous recorder; or
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec. 60.614 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) introductory text
and (e) to read as follows:
[[Page 43087]]
Sec. 60.614 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part to determine
concentration of TOC in the control device outlet and the concentration
of TOC in the inlet when the reduction efficiency of the control device
is to be determined. ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. [thinsp]60.17) may be used in lieu of Method 18, if the target
compounds are all known and are all listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and
ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total VOC method.
* * * * *
(e) The following test methods, except as provided under Sec.
60.8(b), shall be used for determining the net heating value of the gas
combusted to determine compliance under Sec. 60.612(b) and for
determining the process vent stream TRE index value to determine
compliance under Sec. 60.612(c).
(1)(i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate,
for selection of the sampling site. The sampling site for the vent
stream flow rate and molar composition determination prescribed in
Sec. 60.614(e)(2) and (3) shall be, except for the situations outlined
in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, prior to the inlet of any
control device, prior to any post-reactor dilution of the stream with
air, and prior to any post-reactor introduction of halogenated
compounds into the vent stream. No transverse site selection method is
needed for vents smaller than 10 centimeters (4 inches) in diameter.
(ii) If any gas stream other than the air oxidation vent stream
from the affected facility is normally conducted through the final
recovery device.
(A) The sampling site for vent stream flow rate and molar
composition shall be prior to the final recovery device and prior to
the point at which the nonair oxidation stream is introduced.
(B) The efficiency of the final recovery device is determined by
measuring the TOC concentration using Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this
part, or ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
[thinsp]60.17) as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, at the
inlet to the final recovery device after the introduction of any nonair
oxidation vent stream and at the outlet of the final recovery device.
(C) This efficiency is applied to the TOC concentration measured
prior to the final recovery device and prior to the introduction of the
nonair oxidation stream to determine the concentration of TOC in the
air oxidation stream from the final recovery device. This concentration
of TOC is then used to perform the calculations outlined in Sec.
60.614(e)(4) and (5).
(2) The molar composition of the process vent stream shall be
determined as follows:
(i) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part, or ASTM D6420-18
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, to measure the concentration of TOC
including those containing halogens.
(ii) D1946-77 or 90 (Reapproved 1994) (incorporation by reference,
see Sec. 60.17) to measure the concentration of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen.
(iii) Method 4 of appendix A to this part to measure the content of
water vapor.
(3) The volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 2,
2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate.
(4) The net heating value of the vent stream shall be calculated
using the following equation:
Equation 6 to Paragraph (e)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.026
Where:
HT = Net heating value of the sample, MJ/scm (Btu/scf),
where the net enthalpy per mole of vent stream is based on
combustion at 25 [deg]C and 760 mm Hg (77 [deg]F and 30 in. Hg), but
the standard temperature for determining the volume corresponding to
one mole is 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F).
K1 = 1.74 x 10-7 (1/ppm)(g-mole/scm)(MJ/kcal)
(metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/scm) is 20
[deg]C.
= 1.03 x 10-11 (1/ppm)(lb-mole/scf)(Btu/kcal) (English
units) where standard temperature for (lb/mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
Cj = Concentration on a wet basis of compound j in ppm,
as measured for organics by Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part,
or ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
[thinsp]60.17) as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and
measured for hydrogen and carbon monoxide by ASTM D1946-77, 90, or
94 (incorporation by reference, see Sec. 60.17) as indicated in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
Hj = Net heat of combustion of compound j, kcal/(g-mole)
[kcal/(lb-mole)], based on combustion at 25 [deg]C and 760 mm Hg (77
[deg]F and 30 in. Hg).
(5) The emission rate of TOC in the process vent stream shall be
calculated using the following equation:
Equation 7 to Paragraph (e)(5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.027
Where:
ETOC = Measured emission rate of TOC, kg/hr (lb/hr).
K2 = 2.494 x 10-6 (1/ppm)(g-mole/scm)(kg/
g)(min/hr) (metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/
scm) is 20 [deg]C.
= 1.557 x 10-7 (1/ppm)(lb-mole/scf)(min/hr) (English
units), where standard temperature for (lb-mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
Cj = Concentration on a wet basis of compound j in ppm,
as measured by Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part, or ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) as
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, as indicated in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
Mj = Molecular weight of sample j, g/g-mole (lb/lb-mole).
Qs = Vent stream flow rate, scm/hr (scf/hr), at a
temperature of 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F).
(6) The total process vent stream concentration (by volume) of
compounds containing halogens (ppmv, by compound) shall be summed from
the individual concentrations of compounds containing halogens which
were measured by Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part, or ASTM D6420-
18 (incorporated by reference,
[[Page 43088]]
see Sec. 60.17) as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 60.615 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(j) introductory text, and (k) and adding paragraphs (m), (n), and (o)
to read as follows:
Sec. 60.615 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of the
following data measured during each performance test, and also include
the following data in the report of the initial performance test
required under Sec. 60.8. Where a boiler or process heater with a
design heat input capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater
is used to comply with Sec. 60.612(a), a report containing performance
test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the
information of Sec. 60.615(b)(2)(i) is required. The same data
specified in this section shall be submitted in the reports of all
subsequently required performance tests where either the emission
control efficiency of a control device, outlet concentration of TOC, or
the TRE index value of a vent stream from a recovery system is
determined. Beginning on July 15, 2024, owners and operators must
submit the performance test report following the procedures specified
in paragraph (m) of this section. Data collected using test methods
that are 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 using the EPA's
ERT. Alternatively, the owner or operator 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 an
alternate electronic file.
* * * * *
(j) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the
requirements of this subpart by complying with the requirements of
Sec. 60.612 shall submit to the Administrator semiannual reports of
the following information. The initial report shall be submitted within
6 months after the initial start-up-date. On and after July 15, 2025 or
once the report template for this subpart has been available on the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1
year, whichever date is later, owners and operators must submit all
subsequent reports using the appropriate electronic report template on
the CEDRI website for this subpart and following the procedure
specified in paragraph (m) of this section. 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.
* * * * *
(k) The requirements of Sec. 60.615(j) remain in force until and
unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under
section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In
that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the
obligation to comply with Sec. 60.615(j), provided that they comply
with the requirements established by the State. The EPA will not
approve a waiver of electronic reporting to the EPA in delegating
enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be
waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph cannot be used to
relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement
to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
* * * * *
(m) If an owner or operator is required to submit notifications or
reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (m), the
owner or operator must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice
to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information the
owner or operator claims as CBI. Although the EPA does not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if an owner or operator wishes to
assert a CBI claim for some of the information in the report or
notification, the owner or operator must submit a complete file in the
format specified in this subpart, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) and (2)
of this section. Clearly mark the part or all of the information
claimed to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. The owner or
operator must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with the
CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph (m).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. Owners and operators who
do not have their own file sharing service and who require assistance
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments should email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(2) If an owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other files should be sent to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material
should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should
not show through the outer envelope.
(n) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system
outage,
[[Page 43089]]
owners and operators must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(n)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(o) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, owners and
operators may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely
comply with the electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of
force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(o)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) An owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
24. Amend Sec. 60.618 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.618 Delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: Sec.
60.613(e) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to
the EPA required by this subpart.
0
25. Add subpart IIIa to read as follows:
Subpart IIIa--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) Air Oxidation Unit Processes for Which Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After April 25, 2023
Sec.
60.610a Am I subject to this subpart?
60.611a What definitions must I know?
60.612a What standards and associated requirements must I meet?
60.613a What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
60.614a What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards?
60.615a What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
60.616a What do the terms associated with reconstruction mean for
this subpart?
60.617a What are the chemicals that I must produce to be affected by
subpart IIIa?
60.618a [Reserved]
60.619a What are my requirements if I use a flare to comply with
this subpart?
60.620a What are my requirements for closed vent systems?
Table 1 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for Vent Streams
Table 2 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Monitoring Requirements for
Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction of Total Organic
Compounds Emissions or a Limit of 20 Parts Per Million by Volume
Table 3 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Operating Parameters, Operating
Parameter Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance
Frequencies
Table 4 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Calibration and Quality Control
Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS)
Subpart IIIa--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions From the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air Oxidation Unit Processes for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
April 25, 2023
Sec. 60.610a Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you operate an affected
facility designated in paragraph (b) of this section that produces any
of the chemicals listed in Sec. 60.617a as a product, co-product, by-
product, or intermediate, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) The affected facility is any of the following for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after April 25,
2023:
(1) Each air oxidation reactor not discharging its vent stream into
a recovery system.
(2) Each combination of an air oxidation reactor and the recovery
system into which its vent stream is discharged.
(3) Each combination of two or more air oxidation reactors and the
common recovery system into which their vent streams are discharged.
(c) Exemptions from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section
are as follows:
(1) Each affected facility operated with a vent stream flow rate
less than
[[Page 43090]]
0.001 pound per hour (lb/hr) of TOC is exempt from all provisions of
this subpart except for the test method and procedure and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. 60.614a(e) and Sec.
60.615a(h), (i)(8), and (n).
(2) A vent stream going to a fuel gas system as defined in Sec.
63.611a.
Sec. 60.611a What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
Air Oxidation Reactor means any device or process vessel in which
one or more organic reactants are combined with air, or a combination
of air and oxygen, to produce one or more organic compounds.
Ammoxidation and oxychlorination reactions are included in this
definition.
Air Oxidation Reactor Recovery Train means an individual recovery
system receiving the vent stream from at least one air oxidation
reactor, along with all air oxidation reactors feeding vent streams
into this system.
Air Oxidation Unit Process means a unit process, including
ammoxidation and oxychlorination unit process, that uses air, or a
combination of air and oxygen, as an oxygen source in combination with
one or more organic reactants to produce one or more organic compounds.
Boilers means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam.
Breakthrough means the time when the level of TOC, measured at the
outlet of the first bed, has been detected is at the highest
concentration allowed to be discharged from the adsorber system and
indicates that the adsorber bed should be replaced.
By Compound means by individual stream components, not carbon
equivalents.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an
emission point to a control device.
Continuous recorder means a data recording device recording an
instantaneous data value at least once every 15 minutes.
Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler
or process heater occupied by the flame envelope.
Flow indicator means a device which indicates whether gas flow is
present in a vent stream.
Fuel gas means gases that are combusted to derive useful work or
heat.
Fuel gas system means the offsite and onsite piping and flow and
pressure control system that gathers gaseous stream(s) generated by
onsite operations, may blend them with other sources of gas, and
transports the gaseous stream for use as fuel gas in combustion devices
or in in-process combustion equipment such as furnaces and gas turbines
either singly or in combination.
Halogenated vent stream means any vent stream determined to have a
total concentration (by volume) of compounds containing halogens of 20
ppmv (by compound) or greater.
Incinerator means any enclosed combustion device that is used for
destroying organic compounds and does not extract energy in the form of
steam or process heat.
Pressure-assisted multi-point flare means a flare system consisting
of multiple flare burners in staged arrays whereby the vent stream
pressure is used to promote mixing and smokeless operation at the flare
burner tips. Pressure-assisted multi-point flares are designed for
smokeless operation at velocities up to Mach = 1 conditions (i.e.,
sonic conditions), can be elevated or at ground level, and typically
use cross-lighting for flame propagation to combust any flare vent
gases sent to a particular stage of flare burners.
Primary fuel means the fuel fired through a burner or a number of
similar burners. The primary fuel provides the principal heat input to
the device, and the amount of fuel is sufficient to sustain operation
without the addition of other fuels.
Process heater means a device that transfers heat liberated by
burning fuel to fluids contained in tubes, including all fluids except
water that is heated to produce steam.
Process unit means equipment assembled and connected by pipes or
ducts to produce, as intermediates or final products, one or more of
the chemicals in Sec. 60.617a. A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient fuel or raw materials and
sufficient product storage facilities.
Product means any compound or chemical listed in Sec. 60.617a that
is produced for sale as a final product as that chemical or is produced
for use in a process that needs that chemical for the production of
other chemicals in another facility. By-products, co-products, and
intermediates are considered to be products.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment, such as an
absorber, condenser, and carbon adsorber, capable of and used to
recover chemicals for use, reuse, or sale.
Recovery system means an individual recovery device or series of
such devices applied to the same process stream.
Relief valve means a valve used only to release an unplanned,
nonroutine discharge. A relief valve discharge results from an operator
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected cause that requires immediate venting of gas from
process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage.
Total organic compounds (TOC) means those compounds measured
according to the procedures of Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part
or ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) as
specified in Sec. 60.614a(b)(4) or the concentration of organic
compounds measured according to the procedures in Method 21 or Method
25A of appendix A-7 to this part.
Vent stream means any gas stream, containing nitrogen which was
introduced as air to the air oxidation reactor, released to the
atmosphere directly from any air oxidation reactor recovery train or
indirectly, after diversion through other process equipment. The vent
stream excludes equipment leaks including, but not limited to, pumps,
compressors, and valves.
Sec. 60.612a What standards and associated requirements must I meet?
(a) You must comply with the emission limits and standards
specified in Table 1 to this subpart and the requirements specified
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for each vent stream on and
after the date on which the initial performance test required by
Sec. Sec. 60.8 and 60.614a is completed, but not later than 60 days
after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected
facility will be operated, or 180 days after the initial start-up,
whichever date comes first. The standards in this section apply at all
times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As
provided in Sec. 60.11(f), this provision supersedes the exemptions
for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in the general
provisions in subpart A of this part.
(b) The following release events from an affected facility are a
violation of the emission limits and standards specified in table 1 to
this subpart.
(1) Any relief valve discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream.
(2) The use of a bypass line at any time on a closed vent system to
divert emissions to the atmosphere, or to a control device or recovery
device not
[[Page 43091]]
meeting the requirements specified in Sec. 60.613a.
(c) You may designate a vent stream as a maintenance vent if the
vent is only used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or
inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized,
degassed, or placed into service. You must comply with the applicable
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section for each
maintenance vent. Any vent stream designated as a maintenance vent is
only subject to the maintenance vent provisions in this paragraph (c)
and the associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.
60.615a(g), respectively.
(1) Prior to venting to the atmosphere, remove process liquids from
the equipment as much as practical and depressurize the equipment to
either: A flare meeting the requirements of Sec. 60.619a, as
applicable, or using any combination of a non-flare control device or
recovery device meeting the requirements in Table 1 to this subpart
until one of the following conditions, as applicable, is met.
(i) The vapor in the equipment served by the maintenance vent has a
lower explosive limit (LEL) of less than 10 percent.
(ii) If there is no ability to measure the LEL 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 LEL 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.
(iii) The equipment served by the maintenance vent contains less
than 50 pounds of total VOC.
(iv) 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 (iii) of this section can be
met prior to installing or removing a blind flange or similar equipment
blind, then the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance
vent must be reduced to 2 psig or less before installing or removing
the equipment blind. During installation or removal of the equipment
blind, 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, you must determine the LEL or,
if applicable, equipment pressure using process instrumentation or
portable measurement devices and follow procedures for calibration and
maintenance according to manufacturer's specifications.
(3) For maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, you must determine mass of VOC
in the equipment served by the maintenance vent based on the equipment
size and contents after considering any contents drained or purged from
the equipment. Equipment size may be determined from equipment design
specifications. Equipment contents may be determined using process
knowledge.
Sec. 60.613a What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(5) through (7) of this
section, if you use a non-flare control device or recovery system to
comply with the TOC emission limit specified in Table 1 to this
subpart, then you must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), (b),
and (c) of this section.
(1) Install a continuous parameter monitoring system(s) (CPMS) and
monitor the operating parameter(s) applicable to the control device or
recovery system as specified in Table 2 to this subpart or established
according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Establish the applicable minimum, maximum, or range for the
operating parameter limit as specified in Table 3 to this subpart or
established according to paragraph (c) of this section by calculating
the value(s) as the arithmetic average of operating parameter
measurements recorded during the three test runs conducted for the most
recent performance test. You may operate outside of the established
operating parameter limit(s) during subsequent performance tests in
order to establish new operating limits. You must include the updated
operating limits with the performance test results submitted to the
Administrator pursuant to Sec. 60.615a(b). Upon establishment of a new
operating limit, you must thereafter operate under the new operating
limit. If the Administrator determines that you did not conduct the
performance test in accordance with the applicable requirements or that
the operating limit established during the performance test does not
correspond to the conditions specified in Sec. 60.614a(a), then you
must conduct a new performance test and establish a new operating
limit.
(3) Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using
the minimum frequencies specified in Table 3 to this subpart or
established according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) Comply with the calibration and quality control requirements as
specified in Table 4 to this subpart or established according to
paragraph (c) of this section that are applicable to the CPMS used.
(5) Any vent stream introduced with primary fuel into a boiler or
process heater is exempt from the requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(6) If you vent 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 install a system of two or
more adsorber units in series and comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section in
addition to the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(i) Conduct an initial performance test or design evaluation of the
adsorber and establish the breakthrough limit and adsorber bed life.
(ii) Monitor the TOC concentration through a sample port at the
outlet of the first adsorber bed in series according to the schedule in
paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(B) of this section. You must measure the
concentration of TOC using either a portable analyzer, in accordance
with Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part using methane, propane, or
isobutylene as the calibration gas or Method 25A of appendix A-7 of
this part using methane or propane as the calibration gas.
(iii) Comply with paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(A) of this section, and
comply with the monitoring frequency according to paragraph
(a)(6)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when
breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 60.611a, is detected between the
first and second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh
canister) will become the new first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will
become the second adsorber. For purposes of this paragraph
(a)(6)(iii)(A), ``immediately'' means within 8 hours of the detection
of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55 gallons or less, and within 24
hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers greater than 55
gallons. You must monitor at the outlet of the first adsorber within 3
days of replacement to confirm it is performing properly.
(B) Based on the adsorber bed life established according to
paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section and the date the
[[Page 43092]]
adsorbent was last replaced, conduct monitoring to detect breakthrough
at least monthly if the adsorbent has more than 2 months of life
remaining, at least weekly if the adsorbent has between 2 months and 2
weeks of life remaining, and at least daily if the adsorbent has 2
weeks or less of life remaining.
(7) If you install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
to demonstrate compliance with the TOC standard in Table 1 of this
subpart, you must comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
60.614a(f) in lieu of the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) and (c) of this section.
(b) If you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a boiler
or process heater, then the vent stream must be introduced into the
flame zone of the boiler or process heater.
(c) If you seek to demonstrate compliance with the standards
specified under Sec. 60.612a with control devices other than an
incinerator, boiler, process heater, or flare; or recovery devices
other than an absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber, you shall
provide to the Administrator prior to conducting the initial
performance test information describing the operation of the control
device or recovery device and the parameter(s) which would indicate
proper operation and maintenance of the device and how the parameter(s)
are indicative of control of TOC emissions. The Administrator may
request further information and will specify appropriate monitoring
procedures or requirements, including operating parameters to be
monitored, averaging times for determining compliance with the
operating parameter limits, and ongoing calibration and quality control
requirements.
Sec. 60.614a What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards?
(a) For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the emission
limits and standards specified in table 1 to this subpart, all affected
facilities must be run at full operating conditions and flow rates
during any performance test. Performance tests are not required if you
determine compliance using a CEMS that meets the requirements outlined
in paragraph (f) of this section.
(1) Conduct initial performance tests no later than the date
required by Sec. 60.8(a).
(2) Conduct subsequent performance tests no later than 60 calendar
months after the previous performance test.
(b) The following methods, except as provided in Sec. 60.8(b) must
be used as reference methods to determine compliance with the emission
limit or percent reduction efficiency specified in table 1 to this
subpart for non-flare control devices and/or recovery systems.
(1) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate,
for selection of the sampling sites. The inlet sampling site for
determination of vent stream molar composition or TOC (less methane and
ethane) reduction efficiency shall be prior to the inlet of the control
device or, if equipped with a recovery system, then prior to the inlet
of the first recovery device in the recovery system.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part, as
appropriate, for determination of the volumetric flow rates.
(3) Method 3A of appendix A-2 to this part or the manual method in
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
[thinsp]60.17) must be used to determine the oxygen concentration
(%O2d) for the purposes of determining compliance with the 20 ppmv
limit. The sampling site must be the same as that of the TOC samples
and the samples must be taken during the same time that the TOC samples
are taken. The TOC concentration corrected to 3 percent O2
(Cc) must be computed using the following equation:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (b)(3)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.028
Where:
Cc = Concentration of TOC corrected to 3 percent
O2, dry basis, ppm by volume.
CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, ppm by volume.
%O2d = Concentration of O2, dry basis, percent
by volume.
(4) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part to determine
concentration of TOC in the control device outlet or in the outlet of
the final recovery device in a recovery system, and to determine the
concentration of TOC in the inlet when the reduction efficiency of the
control device or recovery system is to be determined. ASTM D6420-18
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) may be used in lieu of
Method 18, if the target compounds are all known and are all listed in
Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 must not be
used for methane and ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a
total VOC method.
(i) The sampling time for each run must be 1 hour in which either
an integrated sample or at least four grab samples must be taken. If
grab sampling is used then the samples must be taken at 15-minute
intervals.
(ii) The emission reduction (R) of TOC (minus methane and ethane)
must be determined using the following equation:
Equation 2 to Paragraph (b)(4)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.029
Where:
R = Emission reduction, percent by weight.
Ei = Mass rate of TOC entering the control device or
recovery system, kg/hr (lb/hr).
Eo = Mass rate of TOC discharged to the atmosphere, kg/hr
(lb/hr).
(iii) The mass rates of TOC (Ei, Eo) must be
computed using the following equations:
Equations 3 and 4 to Paragraph (b)(4)(iii)
[[Page 43093]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.030
Where:
Cij, Coj = Concentration of sample component
``j'' of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control
device or recovery system, respectively, dry basis ppm by volume.
Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of sample
component ``j'' of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the
control device or recovery system, respectively, g/g-mole (lb/lb-
mole).
Qi, Qo = Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet
and outlet of the control device or recovery system, respectively,
dscm/min (dscf/min).
K2 = 2.494 x 10-6 (1/ppm)(g-mole/scm)(kg/
g)(min/hr) (metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/
scm) is 20 [deg]C.
= 1.557 x 10-7 (1/ppm)(lb-mole/scf)(min/hr) (English
units), where standard temperature for (lb-mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
(iv) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is the sum of the
individual components and must be computed for each run using the
following equation:
Equation 5 to Paragraph (b)(4)(iv)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.031
Where:
CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, ppm by volume.
Cj = Concentration of sample components in the sample.
n = Number of components in the sample.
(c) The requirement for initial and subsequent performance tests
are waived, in accordance with Sec. 60.8(b), for the following:
(1) When a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater is used to seek
compliance with the emission limit or percent reduction efficiency
specified in table 1 to this subpart.
(2) When a vent stream is introduced into a boiler or process
heater with the primary fuel.
(3) When a boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste is used
for which the owner or operator:
(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H;
(ii) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H;
(iii) Has submitted a Notification of Compliance under 40 CFR
63.1207(j) and complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE; or
(iv) Complies with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE and will submit a
Notification of Compliance under 40 CFR 63.1207(j) by the date the
owner or operator would have been required to submit the initial
performance test report for this subpart.
(4) The Administrator reserves the option to require testing at
such other times as may be required, as provided for in section 114 of
the Act.
(d) For purposes of complying with the 98 weight-percent reduction
in Sec. 60.612a(a), if the vent stream entering a boiler or process
heater with a design capacity less than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) is
introduced with the combustion air or as secondary fuel, the weight-
percent reduction of TOC (minus methane and ethane) across the
combustion device shall be determined by comparing the TOC (minus
methane and ethane) in all combusted vent streams, primary fuels, and
secondary fuels with the TOC (minus methane and ethane) exiting the
combustion device.
(e) Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeking to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.610a(c)(1) must use the
following methods:
(1) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part, as
appropriate, for determination of the gas volumetric flow rates.
(3) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part to determine the
concentration of TOC. ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) may be used in lieu of Method 18, if the target compounds
are all known and are all listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as
measurable; ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and ethane; and
ASTM D6420-18 must not be used as a total VOC method.
(i) The sampling site must be at a location that provides a
representative sample of the vent stream.
(ii) Perform three test runs. The sampling time for each run must
be 1 hour in which either an integrated sample or at least four grab
samples must be taken. If grab sampling is used then the samples must
be taken at 15-minute intervals.
(iii) The mass rate of TOC (E) must be computed using the following
equation:
Equation 6 to Paragraph (e)(3)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.032
Where:
Cj = Concentration of sample component ``j'' of the gas
stream at the representative sampling location, dry basis, ppm by
volume.
Mj = Molecular weight of sample component ``j'' of the
gas stream at the representative sampling location, g/g-mole (lb/lb-
mole).
[[Page 43094]]
Q = Flow rate of gas stream at the representative sampling location,
dscm/min (dscf/min).
K = 2.494 x 10-6 (1/ppm)(g-mole/scm) (kg/g) (min/hr)
(metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/scm) is 20
[deg]C.
= 1.557 x 10-7 (1/ppm) (lb-mole/scf) (min/hr) (English
units), where standard temperature for (lb-mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
(f) If you use a CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the TOC standard in table 1 of this subpart, each CEMS
must be installed, operated and maintained according to the
requirements in Sec. 60.13 and paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You must use a CEMS that is capable of measuring the target
analyte(s) as demonstrated using either process knowledge of the
control device inlet stream or the screening procedures of Method 18 of
appendix A-6 to this part on the control device inlet stream. If your
CEMS is located after a combustion device and inlet stream to that
device includes methanol or formaldehyde, you must use a CEMS which
meets the requirements in Performance Specification 9 or 15 of appendix
B to this part.
(2) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable performance specification of appendix B to this part
and the applicable quality assurance procedures of appendix F to this
part. Locate the sampling probe or other interface at a measurement
location such that you obtain representative measurements of emissions
from the affected facility.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS within 180 days
of installation of the monitoring system. Conduct subsequent
performance evaluations of the CEMS no later than 12 calendar months
after the previous performance evaluation. The results each performance
evaluation must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 60.615a(b)(1).
(4) You must determine TOC concentration according to one of the
following options. The span value of the TOC CEMS must be approximately
2 times the emission standard specified in table 1 of this subpart.
(i) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification
15 of appendix B to this part, determine the target analyte(s) for
calibration using either process knowledge of the control device inlet
stream or the screening procedures of Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this
part on the control device inlet stream. The individual analytes used
to quantify TOC must represent 98 percent of the expected mass of TOC
present in the stream. Report the results of TOC as equivalent to
carbon (C1).
(ii) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification
9 of appendix B to this part, determine the target analyte(s) for
calibration using either process knowledge of the control device inlet
stream or the screening procedures of Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this
part on the control device inlet stream. The individual analytes used
to quantify TOC must represent 98 percent of the expected mass of TOC
present in the stream. Report the results of TOC as equivalent to
carbon (C1).
(iii) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 8 of appendix B to this part used to monitor performance
of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the predominant
organic HAP and report the results as carbon (C1), and use Method 25A
of appendix A-7 to this part as the reference method for the relative
accuracy tests. You must also comply with procedure 1 of appendix F to
this part.
(iv) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification
8 of appendix B to this part used to monitor performance of a
noncombustion device, determine the predominant organic compound using
either process knowledge or the screening procedures of Method 18 of
appendix A-6 to this part on the control device inlet stream. Calibrate
the monitor on the predominant organic compound and report the results
as C1. Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to this part as the
reference method for the relative accuracy tests. You must also comply
with procedure 1 of appendix F to this part.
(5) You must determine stack oxygen concentration at the same
location where you monitor TOC concentration with a CEMS that meets the
requirements of Performance Specification 3 of appendix B to this part.
The span value of the oxygen CEMS must be approximately 25 percent
oxygen. Use Method 3A of appendix A-2 to this part as the reference
method for the relative accuracy tests.
(6) You must maintain written procedures for your CEMS. At a
minimum, the procedures must include the information in paragraphs
(f)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section:
(i) Description of CEMS installation location.
(ii) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the
manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment components
and the span of the analyzer.
(iii) Routine quality control and assurance procedures.
(iv) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS performance evaluation,
which must include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; a process
change that is expected to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the
Administrator's request for a performance evaluation under section 114
of the Clean Air Act.
(v) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures.
Sec. 60.615a What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
(a) You must notify the Administrator of the specific provisions of
table 1 to this subpart or Sec. 60.612a(c) with which you have elected
to comply. Notification must be submitted with the notification of
initial start-up required by Sec. 60.7(a)(3). If you elect at a later
date to use an alternative provision of table 1 to this subpart with
which you will comply, then you must notify the Administrator 90 days
before implementing a change and, upon implementing the change, you
must conduct a performance test as specified by Sec. 60.614a within
180 days.
(b) If you use a non-flare control device or recovery system to
comply with the TOC emission limit specified in table 1 to this
subpart, then you must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of
the data measured during each performance test to show compliance with
the TOC emission limit. You must also include all of the data you use
to comply with Sec. 60.613a(a)(2). The same data specified in this
paragraph must also be submitted in the initial performance test
required in Sec. 60.8 and the reports of all subsequently required
performance tests where either the emission reduction efficiency of a
control device or recovery system or outlet concentration of TOC is
determined. Alternatively, you must keep records of each CEMS
performance evaluation.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test or CEMS performance evaluation required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation
following the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this section.
Data collected using test methods and performance evaluations of CEMS
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants supported by
the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT
website (https://www.epa.gov/
[[Page 43095]]
electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at
the time of the test or performance evaluation must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
owners and operators 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 and 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 test must be
included as an attachment in the ERT or alternate electronic file.
(2) If you use a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater to comply with the
TOC emission limit specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you are
not required to submit a report containing performance test data;
however, you must submit a description of the location at which the
vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater.
(c) If you use a non-flare control device or recovery system to
comply with the TOC emission limit specified in table 1 to this
subpart, then you must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of
periods of operation during which the operating parameter limits
established during the most recent performance test are exceeded or
periods of operation where the TOC CEMS, averaged on a 3-hour block
basis, indicate an exceedance of the emission standard in table 1 of
this subpart. Additionally, you must record all periods when the TOC
CEMS is inoperable. The Administrator may at any time require a report
of these data. Periods of operation during which the operating
parameter limits established during the most recent performance tests
are exceeded are defined as follows:
(1) For absorbers:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
absorbing liquid temperature was above the maximum absorbing liquid
temperature established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
absorbing liquid specific gravity was outside the exit specific gravity
range (i.e., more than 0.1 unit above, or more than 0.1 unit below, the
average absorbing liquid specific gravity) established during the most
recent performance test.
(2) For boilers or process heaters:
(i) Whenever there is a change in the location at which the vent
stream is introduced into the flame zone as required under Sec.
60.613a(b).
(ii) If the boiler or process heater has a design heat input
capacity of less than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr), then all 3-hour
periods of operation during which the average firebox temperature was
below the minimum firebox temperature during the most recent
performance test.
(3) For catalytic incinerators:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
temperature of the vent stream immediately before the catalyst bed is
below the minimum temperature of the vent stream established during the
most recent performance test.
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
temperature difference across the catalyst bed is less than the average
temperature difference of the device established during the most recent
performance test.
(4) For carbon adsorbers:
(i) All carbon bed regeneration cycles during which the total mass
stream flow or the total volumetric stream flow was below the minimum
flow established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) All carbon bed regeneration cycles during which the
temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration (and after completion
of any cooling cycle(s)) was greater than the maximum carbon bed
temperature (in degrees Celsius) established during the most recent
performance test.
(5) For condensers, all 3-hour periods of operation during which
the average exit (product side) condenser operating temperature was
above the maximum exit (product side) operating temperature established
during the most recent performance test.
(6) For scrubbers used to control halogenated vent streams:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average pH of
the scrubber effluent is below the minimum pH of the scrubber effluent
established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
influent liquid flow to the scrubber is below the minimum influent
liquid flow to the scrubber established during the most recent
performance test.
(iii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
liquid-to-gas ratio flow of the scrubber is below the minimum liquid-
to-gas ratio of the scrubber established during the most recent
performance test.
(7) For thermal incinerators, all 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average firebox temperature was below the minimum
firebox temperature established during the most recent performance
test.
(8) For all other control devices, all periods (for the averaging
time specified by the Administrator) when the operating parameter(s)
established under Sec. 60.613a(c) exceeded the operating limit
established during the most recent performance test.
(d) You must keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records
of the flow indication specified in Table 2 to this subpart, as well as
up-to-date, readily accessible records of all periods when the vent
stream is diverted from the control device or recovery device or has no
flow rate, including the records as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) For each flow event from a relief valve discharge subject to
the requirements in Sec. 60.612a(b)(1), you must include an estimate
of the volume of gas, the concentration of TOC in the gas and the
resulting emissions of TOC that released to the atmosphere using
process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(2) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.612a(b)(2) and 60.620a(e), you must
maintain records sufficient to determine whether or not the detected
flow included flow requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass
line requiring control that is released either directly to the
atmosphere or to a control device or recovery device not meeting the
requirements in this subpart, you must include an estimate of the
volume of gas, the concentration of TOC in the gas and the resulting
emissions of TOC that bypassed the control device or recovery device
using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(e) If you use a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater to comply with the
TOC emission limit specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must
keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of all periods of
operation of the boiler or process heater. (Examples of such records
could include records of steam use, fuel use, or monitoring data
collected pursuant to other State or Federal regulatory requirements).
(f) If you use a flare to comply with the TOC emission standard
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must keep up-to-date,
readily accessible records of all visible emission readings, heat
content determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the initial visible emissions demonstration
required by Sec. 63.670(h) of this chapter, as applicable; and all
periods during the
[[Page 43096]]
compliance determination when the pilot flame or flare flame is absent.
(g) For each maintenance vent opening subject to the requirements
of Sec. 60.612a(c), you must keep the applicable records specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must maintain standard site procedures used to deinventory
equipment for safety purposes (e.g., hot work or vessel entry
procedures) to document the procedures used to meet the requirements in
Sec. 60.612a(c). The current copy of the procedures must be retained
and available on-site at all times. Previous versions of the standard
site procedures, as applicable, must be retained for five years.
(2) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.612a(c)(1)(i),
and the lower explosive limit at the time of the vessel opening exceeds
10 percent, identification of the maintenance vent, the process units
or equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of
maintenance vent opening, and the lower explosive limit at the time of
the vessel opening.
(3) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.612a(c)(1)(ii),
and either the vessel pressure at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 5 psig or the lower explosive limit at the time of the active
purging was initiated exceeds 10 percent, 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 lower explosive limit of the vapors in the equipment
when active purging was initiated.
(4) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.612a(c)(1)(iii),
records of the estimating procedures used to determine the total
quantity of VOC in the equipment and the type and size limits of
equipment that contain less than 50 pounds of VOC at the time of
maintenance vent opening. For each maintenance vent opening that
contains greater than 50 pounds of VOC for which the deinventory
procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section are not
followed or for which the equipment opened exceeds the type and size
limits established in the records specified in this paragraph (g)(4),
records that identify the maintenance vent, the process units or
equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of maintenance
vent opening, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in
the equipment at the time the maintenance vent was opened to the
atmosphere.
(5) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.612a(c)(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 lower explosive limit 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.
(h) If you seek to comply with the requirements of this subpart by
complying with the flow rate cutoff in Sec. 60.610a(c)(1) you must
keep up-to-date, readily accessible records to indicate that the vent
stream flow rate is less than 0.001 lb/hr, and of any change in
equipment or process operation that increases the operating vent stream
flow rate, including a measurement of the new vent stream flow rate.
(i) You must submit to the Administrator semiannual reports of the
information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
You are exempt from the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
60.7(c). If there are no exceedances, periods, or events specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section that occurred during the
reporting period, then you must include a statement in your report that
no exceedances, periods, and events specified in paragraphs (i)(1)
through (7) of this section occurred during the reporting period. The
initial report must be submitted within 6 months after the initial
start-up-date. On and after July 15, 2024 or once the report template
for this subpart has been available on the Compliance and Emissions
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1 year, whichever date is
later, you must submit all subsequent reports using the appropriate
electronic report template on the CEDRI website for this subpart and
following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section. 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. All
semiannual reports must include the following general information:
company name, address (including county), and beginning and ending
dates of the reporting period.
(1) Exceedances of monitored parameters recorded under paragraph
(c) of this section. For each exceedance, the report must include a
list of the affected facilities or equipment, the monitored parameter
that was exceeded, the start date and time of the exceedance, the
duration (in hours) of the exceedance, an estimate of the quantity in
pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, the cause of
the exceedance (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable,
and the corrective action taken.
(2) All periods recorded under paragraph (d) of this section when
the vent stream is diverted from the control device or recovery device,
or has no flow rate, including the information specified in paragraphs
(i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For periods when the flow indicator is not operating, the
identification of the flow indicator and report the start date, start
time, and duration in hours.
(ii) For each flow event from a relief valve discharge subject to
the requirements in Sec. 60.612a(b)(1), the semiannual report must
include the identification of the relief valve, the start date, start
time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard
cubic feet, the concentration of TOC in the gas in parts per million by
volume and the resulting mass emissions of TOC in pounds that released
to the atmosphere.
(iii) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in Sec. 60.612a(b)(2) and Sec. 620a(e)(2), the
semiannual report must include the identification of the bypass line,
the start date, start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume
of gas in standard cubic feet, the concentration of TOC in the gas in
parts per million by volume and the resulting mass emissions of TOC in
pounds that bypass a control device or recovery device.
(3) All periods when a boiler or process heater was not operating
(considering the records recorded under paragraph (e) of this section),
including
[[Page 43097]]
the start date, start time, and duration in hours of each period.
(4) For each flare subject to the requirements in Sec. 60.619a,
the semiannual report must include an identification of the flare and
the items specified in Sec. 60.619a(l)(2).
(5) For each closed vent system subject to the requirements in
Sec. 60.620a, the semiannual report must include an identification of
the closed vent system and the items specified in Sec. 60.620a(i).
(6) Exceedances of the emission standard in table 1 to this subpart
as indicated by a 3-hour average of the TOC CEMS and recorded under
paragraph (c) of this section. For each exceedance, the report must
include a list of the affected facilities or equipment, the start date
and time of the exceedance, the duration (in hours) of the exceedance,
an estimate of the quantity in pounds of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the emission limit, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, the cause of the exceedance (including unknown
cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(7) Periods when the TOC CEMS was inoperative. For each period, the
report must include a list of the affected facilities or equipment, the
start date and time of the period, the duration (in hours) of the
period, the cause of the inoperability (including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(8) Any change in equipment or process operation that increases the
operating vent stream flow rate above the low flow exemption level in
Sec. 60.610a(c)(1), including a measurement of the new vent stream
flow rate, as recorded under paragraph (h) of this section. These must
be reported as soon as possible after the change and no later than 180
days after the change. These reports may be submitted either in
conjunction with semiannual reports or as a single separate report. A
performance test must be completed with the same time period to verify
the recalculated flow value. The performance test is subject to the
requirements of Sec. 60.8 of the General Provisions and must be
submitted according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Unless the
facility qualifies for an exemption under Sec. 60.610a(c), the
facility must begin compliance with the requirements set forth in Sec.
60.612a.
(j) If you are required to submit notifications or reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph (j), you must
submit notifications or reports to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information in the report or notification, you must submit
a complete file in the format specified in this subpart, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark the part or all
of the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as
CBI may be authorized for public release without prior notice.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c),
emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier
in this paragraph (j).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. If assistance is needed
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the
attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other
files should be sent to the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead.
The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked.
Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(k) If you are required to electronically submit notifications or
reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA
system outage for failure to timely comply with the electronic
submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this
section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(l) If you are required to electronically submit notifications or
reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply with the electronic submittal
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs,
[[Page 43098]]
or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event
within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the
date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force
majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(m) The requirements of paragraph (i) of this section remain in
force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a
State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements
or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such
State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be
relieved of the obligation to comply with paragraph (i) of this
section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by
the State. The EPA will not approve a waiver of electronic reporting to
the EPA in delegating enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting
to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this
paragraph cannot be used to relieve owners or operators of affected
facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required
in this section to the EPA.
(n) If you seek to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.610(c)(1),
then you must submit to the Administrator, following the procedures in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an initial report including a flow
rate measurement using the test methods specified in Sec. 60.614a.
(o) The Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and
recordkeeping requirements where the owner or operator of an affected
facility seeks to demonstrate compliance with the standards specified
under Sec. 60.612a other than as provided under Sec. 60.613a.
(p) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
Sec. 60.616a What do the terms associated with reconstruction mean
for this subpart?
For purposes of this subpart ``fixed capital cost of the new
components,'' as used in Sec. 60.15, includes the fixed capital cost
of all depreciable components which are or will be replaced pursuant to
all continuous programs of component replacement which are commenced
within any 2-year period following April 25, 2023. For purposes of this
section, ``commenced'' means that you have undertaken a continuous
program of component replacement or that you have entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable
time, a continuous program of component replacement.
Sec. 60.617a What are the chemicals that I must produce to be
affected by subpart IIIa?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde............................................... 75-07-0
Acetic acid................................................ 64-19-7
Acetone.................................................... 67-64-1
Acetonitrile............................................... 75-05-8
Acetophenone............................................... 98-86-2
Acrolein................................................... 107-02-8
Acrylic acid............................................... 79-10-7
Acrylonitrile.............................................. 107-13-1
Anthraquinone.............................................. 84-65-1
Benzaldehyde............................................... 100-52-7
Benzoic acid, tech......................................... 65-85-0
1,3-Butadiene.............................................. 106-99-0
p-t-Butyl benzoic acid..................................... 98-73-7
N-Butyric acid............................................. 107-92-6
Crotonic acid.............................................. 3724-65-0
Cumene hydroperoxide....................................... 80-15-9
Cyclohexanol............................................... 108-93-0
Cyclohexanone.............................................. 108-94-1
Dimethyl terephthalate..................................... 120-61-6
Ethylene dichloride........................................ 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide............................................. 75-21-8
Formaldehyde............................................... 50-00-0
Formic acid................................................ 64-18-6
Glyoxal.................................................... 107-22-2
Hydrogen cyanide........................................... 74-90-8
Isobutyric acid............................................ 79-31-2
Isophthalic acid........................................... 121-91-5
Maleic anhydride........................................... 108-31-6
Methyl ethyl ketone........................................ 78-93-3
a-Methyl styrene........................................... 98-83-9
Phenol..................................................... 108-95-2
Phthalic anhydride......................................... 85-44-9
Propionic acid............................................. 79-09-4
Propylene oxide............................................ 75-56-9
Styrene.................................................... 100-42-5
Terephthalic acid.......................................... 100-21-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Registry numbers assigned
to specific chemicals, isomers, or mixtures of chemicals. Some isomers
or mixtures that are covered by the standards do not have CAS numbers
assigned to them. The standards apply to all of the chemicals listed,
whether CAS numbers have been assigned or not.
Sec. 60.618a [Reserved]
Sec. 60.619a What are my requirements if I use a flare to comply with
this subpart?
(a) If you use a flare to comply with the TOC emission standard
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must meet the applicable
requirements for flares as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.670 and 63.671 of
this chapter, including the provisions in tables 12 and 13 to part 63,
subpart CC, of this chapter, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (o) of this section. This requirement also applies to any flare
using fuel gas from a fuel gas system, of which 50 percent or more of
the fuel gas is derived from an affected facility, as determined on an
annual average basis. For purposes of compliance with this paragraph
(a), the following terms are defined in Sec. 63.641 of this chapter:
Assist air, assist steam, center steam, combustion zone, combustion
zone gas, flare, flare purge gas, flare supplemental gas, flare sweep
gas, flare vent gas, lower steam, net heating value, perimeter assist
air, pilot gas, premix assist air, total steam, and upper steam.
(b) When determining compliance with the pilot flame requirements
specified in Sec. 63.670(b) and (g) of this chapter, substitute
``pilot flame or flare flame'' for each occurrence of ``pilot flame.''
(c) When determining compliance with the flare tip velocity and
combustion zone operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) and (e)
of this chapter, the requirement effectively applies starting with the
15-minute
[[Page 43099]]
block that includes a full 15 minutes of the flaring event. You are
required to demonstrate compliance with the velocity and NHVcz
requirements starting with the block that contains the fifteenth minute
of a flaring event. You are not required to demonstrate compliance for
the previous 15-minute block in which the event started and contained
only a fraction of flow.
(d) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(o)(2)(i) of this
chapter, you must develop and implement the flare management plan no
later than startup for a new flare that commenced construction on or
after April 25, 2023.
(e) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(o)(2)(iii) of this
chapter, 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) following the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.615a(j).
(f) Section 63.670(o)(3)(ii) of this chapter and all references to
it do not apply. Instead, you must comply with the maximum flare tip
velocity operating limit at all times.
(g) Substitute ``affected facility'' for each occurrence of
``petroleum refinery.''
(h) Each occurrence of ``refinery'' does not apply.
(i) If a pressure-assisted multi-point flare is used as a control
device, then you must meet the following conditions:
(1) You are not required to comply with the flare tip velocity
requirements in of Sec. 63.670(d) and (k) of this chapter;
(2) The NHVcz for pressure-assisted mulit-point flares is 800 Btu/
scf;
(3) You must determine the 15-minute block average NHVvg using only
the direct calculation method specified in in Sec. 63.670 (l)(5)(ii)
of this chapter;
(4) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(b) and (g) of this
chapter, if a pressure-assisted multi-point flare uses cross-lighting
on a stage of burners rather than having an individual pilot flame on
each burner, then you must operate each stage of the pressure-assisted
multi-point flare with a flame present at all times when regulated
material is routed to that stage of burners. Each stage of burners that
cross-lights in the pressure-assisted multi-point 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. Each 15-minute block during which there is at least one minute
where no pilot flame is present on a stage of burners 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 pilot flame(s) on each stage of
burners that use cross-lighting must be continuously monitored by a
thermocouple or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence
of a flame;
(5) Unless you choose to conduct a cross-light performance
demonstration as specified in this paragraph (i)(5), you 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 you conduct a performance demonstration
that confirms the pressure-assisted multi-point 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. The compliance demonstration must be approved by the
permitting authority and a copy of this approval must be maintained
onsite. The compliance demonstration report must include: a protocol
describing the test methodology used, associated test method QA/QC
parameters, the waste gas composition and NHVcz of the gas tested, the
velocity of the waste gas tested, the pressure-assisted multi-point
flare burner tip pressure, the time, length, and duration of the test,
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, records of maintaining a stable flame after a successful cross-
light and the duration for which this was observed, records of any
smoking events during the cross-light, waste gas temperature,
meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, barometric
pressure, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity), and whether
there were any observed flare flameouts; and
(6) You 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 to part 63,
subpart CC of this chapter.
(7) If a pressure-assisted multi-point flare is operating under the
requirements of an approved alternative means of emission limitations,
you must either continue to comply with the terms of the alternative
means of emission limitations or comply with the provisions in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (6) of this section.
(j) If you choose to determine compositional analysis for net
heating value with a continuous process mass spectrometer, then you
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) You must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.671(e)(2) of this
chapter. You may augment the minimum list of calibration gas components
found in Sec. 63.671(e)(2) with compounds found during a pre-survey or
known to be in the gas through process knowledge.
(2) Calibration gas cylinders 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 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 Performance
Specification 9 of appendix B of this part, for continuous monitoring
system acceptance including, but not limited to, performing an initial
multi-point calibration check at three concentrations following the
procedure in section 10.1 and performing the periodic calibration
requirements listed for gas chromatographs in table 13 to part 63,
subpart CC of this chapter, for the process mass spectrometer. You may
use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net Heating
Value by Gas Chromatograph in table 13 to part 63, subpart CC.
(7) The average instrument calibration error (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
[[Page 43100]]
component in the calibration blend must be calculated using equation 1
to this paragraph (j)(7).
Equation 1 to Paragraph (j)(7)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.033
Where:
Cm = Average instrument response (ppm)
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm)
(k) If you use a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for
compositional analysis for net heating value, then you may choose to
use the CE of NHVmeasured versus the cylinder tag value NHV
as the measure of agreement for daily calibration and quarterly audits
in lieu of determining the compound-specific CE. The CE for NHV at any
calibration level must not differ by more than 10 percent from the
certified cylinder gas value. The CE must be calculated using equation
2 to this paragraph (k).
Equation 2 to Paragraph (k)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.034
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)
(l) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(q) of this chapter, you
must comply with the reporting requirements specified in paragraphs
(l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The notification requirements specified in Sec. 60.615a(a).
(2) The semiannual report specified in Sec. 60.615a(i)(4) must
include the items specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (vi) of
this section.
(i) Records as specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this section for
each 15-minute block during which there was at least one minute when
regulated material is routed to a flare and no pilot flame or flare
flame is present. Include the start and stop time and date of each 15-
minute block.
(ii) Visible emission records as specified in paragraph (m)(2)(iv)
of this section for each period of 2 consecutive hours during which
visible emissions exceeded a total of 5 minutes.
(iii) The periods specified in paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
Indicate the date and start and end times for each period, and the net
heating value operating parameter(s) determined following the methods
in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) of part 63, subpart CC of this chapter
as applicable.
(iv) For flaring events meeting the criteria in Sec. 63.670(o)(3)
of this chapter and paragraph (f) of this section:
(A) The start and stop time and date of the flaring event.
(B) The length of time in minutes for which emissions were visible
from the flare during the event.
(C) For steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-assisted flares, the
start date, start time, and duration in minutes for periods of time
that the flare tip velocity exceeds the maximum flare tip velocity
determined using the methods in Sec. 63.670(d)(2) of this chapter and
the maximum 15-minute block average flare tip velocity in ft/sec
recorded during the event.
(D) 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.
(v) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, the periods of time
when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the burners
operating outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications.
Indicate the date and start and end times for each period.
(vi) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, the periods of time
when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a
stage should not be in operation and is or when a stage should be in
operation and is not. Indicate the date and start and end times for
each period.
(m) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(p) of this chapter, you
must keep the flare monitoring records specified in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (14) of this section.
(1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to
detect the presence of a pilot flame or flare flame as required in
Sec. 63.670(b) of this chapter and the presence of a pilot flame as
required in paragraph (i)(4) of this section for a minimum of 2 years.
Retain records of each 15-minute block during which there was at least
one minute that no pilot flame or flare flame is present when regulated
material is routed to a flare for a minimum of 5 years. For a pressure-
assisted multi-point flare that uses cross-lighting, retain records of
each 15-minute block during which there was at least one minute that no
pilot flame is present on each stage when regulated material is routed
to a flare for a minimum of 5 years. You may reduce the collected
minute-by-minute data to a 15-minute block basis with an indication of
whether there was at least one minute where no pilot flame or flare
flame was present.
(2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations as
specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable, for a minimum of 3 years.
(i) To determine when visible emissions observations are required,
the record must identify all periods when regulated material is vented
to the flare.
(ii) If visible emissions observations are performed using Method
22 of appendix A-7 of this part, then the record must identify whether
the visible emissions observation was performed, the results of each
observation, total duration of observed visible emissions, and whether
it was a 5-minute or 2-hour observation. Record the date and start time
of each visible emissions observation.
(iii) If a video surveillance camera is used pursuant to Sec.
63.670(h)(2) of this chapter, then the record must include all video
surveillance images recorded, with time and date stamps.
(iv) For each 2-hour period for which visible emissions are
observed for more than 5 minutes in 2 consecutive hours, then the
record must include the date and start and end time of the 2-hour
period and an estimate of the cumulative number of minutes in the 2
hour period for which emissions were visible.
(3) The 15-minute block average cumulative flows for flare vent gas
and, if applicable, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix
assist air specified to be monitored under Sec. 63.670(i) of this
chapter, along with the date and time
[[Page 43101]]
interval for the 15-minute block. If multiple monitoring locations are
used to determine cumulative vent gas flow, total steam, perimeter
assist air, and premix assist air, then retain records of the 15-minute
block average flows for each monitoring location for a minimum of 2
years and retain the 15-minute block average cumulative flows that are
used in subsequent calculations for a minimum of 5 years. If pressure
and temperature monitoring is used, then retain records of the 15-
minute block average temperature, pressure, and molecular weight of the
flare vent gas or assist gas stream for each measurement location used
to determine the 15-minute block average cumulative flows for a minimum
of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute block average cumulative flows
that are used in subsequent calculations for a minimum of 5 years.
(4) The flare vent gas compositions specified to be monitored under
Sec. 63.670(j) of this chapter. Retain records of individual component
concentrations from each compositional analysis for a minimum of 2
years. If an NHVvg analyzer is used, retain records of the 15-minute
block average values for a minimum of 5 years.
(5) Each 15-minute block average operating parameter calculated
following the methods specified in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) of this
chapter, as applicable.
(6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the
applicable operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) of
this chapter and paragraph (i) of this section when regulated material
is being routed to the flare.
(7) All periods during which you do not perform flare monitoring
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.670(g) through (j) of this
chapter.
(8) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, if a stage of burners
on the flare uses cross-lighting, then a record of any changes made to
the distance between burners.
(9) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, all periods when the
pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show burners are operating
outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the
date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s)
and number of burners affected, and the range of manufacturer's
specifications.
(10) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, all periods when the
staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of
the pressure-assisted multi-point flare should not be in operation and
when a stage of the pressure-assisted multi-point flare should be in
operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period,
whether the stage was supposed to be open, but was closed or vice
versa, and the stage(s) and number of burners affected.
(11) Records of periods when there is flow of vent gas to the
flare, but when there is no flow of regulated material to the flare,
including the start and stop time and dates of periods of no regulated
material flow.
(12) Records when the flow of vent gas exceeds the smokeless
capacity of the flare, including start and stop time and dates of the
flaring event.
(13) Records of the root cause analysis and corrective action
analysis conducted as required in Sec. 63.670(o)(3) of this chapter
and paragraph (f) of this section, including an identification of the
affected flare, the date and duration of the event, a statement noting
whether the event resulted from the same root cause(s) identified in a
previous analysis and either a description of the recommended
corrective action(s) or an explanation of why corrective action is not
necessary under Sec. 63.670(o)(5)(i) of this chapter.
(14) For any corrective action analysis for which implementation of
corrective actions are required in Sec. 63.670(o)(5) of this chapter,
a description of the corrective action(s) completed within the first 45
days following the discharge and, for action(s) not already completed,
a schedule for implementation, including proposed commencement and
completion dates.
(n) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions
limitation requirements specified in paragraph (r) of Sec. 63.670 of
this chapter in lieu of the requirements in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f)
of this chapter, as applicable. However, instead of complying with
Sec. 63.670(r)(3)(iii) of this chapter, you must also submit the
alternative means of emissions limitation request to the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA
Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead, 4930 Old Page
Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
(o) The referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (o)(1)
through (4) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this section.
(1) Section 63.670(o)(4)(iv) of this chapter.
(2) The last sentence of Sec. 63.670(o)(6) of this chapter.
(3) The phrase ``that were not caused by a force majeure event'' in
Sec. 63.670(o)(7)(ii) of this chapter.
(4) The phrase ``that were not caused by a force majeure event'' in
Sec. 63.670(o)(7)(iv) of this chapter.
Sec. 60.620a What are my requirements for closed vent systems?
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section,
you must inspect each closed vent system according to the procedures
and schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section unless the closed vent system is operated
and maintained under negative pressure,
(2) Conduct annual inspections according to the procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section unless the closed vent system is operated
and maintained under negative pressure, and
(3) Conduct annual inspections for visible, audible, or olfactory
indications of leaks.
(b) You must inspect each closed vent system according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Inspections must be conducted in accordance with Method 21 of
appendix A of this part.
(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section,
the detection instrument must meet the performance criteria of Method
21 of appendix A of this part, except the instrument response factor
criteria in section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 must be for the average
composition of the process fluid not each individual volatile organic
compound in the stream. For process streams that contain nitrogen, air,
or other inerts which are not organic hazardous air pollutants or
volatile organic compounds, the average stream response factor must be
calculated on an inert-free basis.
(ii) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet
the performance criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the
average response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-
free basis as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) The detection instrument must be calibrated before use on each
day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 of appendix A
of this part.
(4) Calibration gases must be as follows:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million hydrocarbon in air);
and
[[Page 43102]]
(ii) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 2,000
parts per million. A calibration gas other than methane in air may be
used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument
does not meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i)
of this section. In such cases, the calibration gas may be a mixture of
one or more of the compounds to be measured in air.
(5) You may elect to adjust or not adjust instrument readings for
background. If you elect to not adjust readings for background, all
such instrument readings must be compared directly to the applicable
leak definition to determine whether there is a leak.
(6) If you elect to adjust instrument readings for background, you
must determine the background concentration using Method 21 of appendix
A of this part. After monitoring each potential leak interface,
subtract the background reading from the maximum concentration
indicated by the instrument. The arithmetic difference between the
maximum concentration indicated by the instrument and the background
level must be compared with 500 parts per million for determining
compliance.
(c) Leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500
parts per million above background or by visual, audio, or olfactory
inspections, must be repaired as soon as practicable, except as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 calendar
days after the leak is detected.
(2) Repair must be completed no later than 15 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(d) Delay of repair of a closed vent system for which leaks have
been detected is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible
without a shutdown, as defined in Sec. 60.2, or if you determine that
emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the
fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of
such equipment must be complete by the end of the next shutdown.
(e) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that
could divert a vent stream away from the control device and to the
atmosphere, you must comply with the provisions of either paragraph
(e)(1) or (2), except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
determines whether vent stream flow is present at least once every 15
minutes. You must keep hourly records of whether the flow indicator was
operating and whether a diversion was detected at any time during the
hour, as well as records of the times and durations of all periods when
the vent stream is diverted to the atmosphere or the flow indicator is
not operating. The flow indicator must be installed at the entrance to
any bypass line; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the
seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every month
to ensure the valve is maintained in the closed position and the vent
stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
(3) Open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind flange, plug,
or second valve and follow the requirements specified in Sec. 60.482-
6(a)(2), (b), and (c) or follow requirements codified in another
regulation that are the same as Sec. 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) are
not subject to this paragraph (e).
(f) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as
described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, as unsafe to inspect are
exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section if:
(1) You determine that the equipment is unsafe to inspect because
inspecting personnel would be exposed to an imminent or potential
danger as a consequence of complying with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section; and
(2) You have a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-to-inspect times.
(g) Any parts of the closed vent system are designated, as
described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, as difficult to inspect
are exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section if:
(1) You determine that the equipment cannot be inspected without
elevating the inspecting personnel more than 2 meters above a support
surface; and
(2) You have a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment at least once every 5 years.
(h) You must record the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system that are
designated as unsafe to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment is
unsafe to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(2) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system that are
designated as difficult to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment
is difficult to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(3) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that
could divert a vent stream away from the control device and to the
atmosphere, you must keep a record of the information specified in
either paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section in addition to the
information specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator specified under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section was operating and whether a diversion
was detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the
times of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control
device or the flow indicator is not operating.
(ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with paragraph (e)(2)
of this section, hourly records of flow are not required. In such
cases, you must record whether the monthly visual inspection of the
seals or closure mechanisms has been done, and you must record the
occurrence of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass
line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type
configuration has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that
has broken.
(iii) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in paragraph (e) of this section, you must maintain
records sufficient to determine whether or not the detected flow
included flow requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass line
requiring control that is released either directly to the atmosphere or
to a control device not meeting the requirements in this subpart, you
must include an estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of VOC
in the gas and the resulting emissions of VOC that bypassed the control
device using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(4) For each inspection during which a leak is detected, a record
of the information specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (viii) of
this section.
(i) The instrument identification numbers; operator name or
initials; and identification of the equipment.
(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of the first
attempt to repair the leak.
(iii) Maximum instrument reading measured by the method specified
in paragraph (c) of this section after the leak is successfully
repaired or determined to be nonrepairable.
(iv) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is
not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
[[Page 43103]]
(v) The name, initials, or other form of identification of the
owner or operator (or designee) whose decision it was that repair could
not be effected without a shutdown.
(vi) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak
is not repaired within 15 calendar days.
(vii) Dates of shutdowns that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(viii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(5) For each inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph (b)
of this section during which no leaks are detected, a record that the
inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a statement
that no leaks were detected.
(6) For each inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph
(a)(3) of this section during which no leaks are detected, a record
that the inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a
statement that no leaks were detected.
(i) The semiannual report specified in Sec. 60.615a(i)(5) must
include the items specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Reports of the times of all periods recorded under paragraph
(h)(3)(i) of this section when the vent stream is diverted from the
control device through a bypass line. Include the start date, start
time, and duration in hours of each period.
(2) Reports of all periods recorded under paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of
this section in which the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line
valve position has changed, or the key to unlock the bypass line valve
was checked out. Include the start date, start time, and duration in
hours of each period.
(3) For bypass lines subject to the requirements in paragraph (e)
of this section, the semiannual reports must include the start date,
start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in
standard cubic feet, the concentration of VOC in the gas in parts per
million by volume and the resulting mass emissions of VOC in pounds
that bypass a control device. For periods when the flow indicator is
not operating, report the start date, start time, and duration in
hours.
Table 1 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards for
Vent Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each. . . You must. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Vent stream......................... a. Reduce emissions of TOC
(minus methane and ethane) by
98 weight-percent, or to a TOC
(minus methane and ethane)
concentration of 20 ppmv on a
dry basis corrected to 3
percent oxygen by venting
emissions through a closed
vent system to any combination
of non-flare control devices
and/or recovery system and
meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 60.613a
and Sec. 60.620a; or
b. Reduce emissions of TOC
(minus methane and ethane) by
venting emissions through a
closed vent system to a flare
and meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 60.619a
and Sec. 60.620a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Monitoring Requirements for
Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction of Total Organic Compounds
Emissions or a Limit of 20 Parts Per Million by Volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-flare control device or recovery
device Parameters to be monitored
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All control and recovery devices.... a. Presence of flow diverted to
the atmosphere from the
control and recovery device;
or
b. Monthly inspections of
sealed valves.
2. Absorber............................ a. Exit temperature of the
absorbing liquid; and
b. Exit specific gravity.
3. Boiler or process heater with a Firebox temperature.\a\
design heat input capacity less than
44 megawatts and vent stream is not
introduced with or as the primary fuel.
4. Catalytic incinerator............... Temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst
bed.
5. Carbon adsorber, regenerative....... a. Total regeneration stream
mass or volumetric flow during
carbon bed regeneration
cycle(s); and
b. Temperature of the carbon
bed after regeneration [and
within 15 minutes of
completing any cooling
cycle(s)].
6. Carbon adsorber, non-regenerative or Breakthrough.
regenerated offsite.
7. Condenser........................... Exit (product side)
temperature.
8. Scrubber for halogenated vent a. pH of scrubber effluent; and
streams.
b. Scrubber liquid and gas flow
rates.
9. Thermal incinerator................. Firebox temperature.\a\
10. Control devices other than an As specified by the
incinerator, boiler, process heater, Administrator.
or flare; or recovery devices other
than an absorber, condenser, or carbon
adsorber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange is encountered.
[[Page 43104]]
Table 3 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Operating Parameters, Operating Parameter Limits and Data Monitoring,
Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must establish And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous
the following compliance using these minimum frequencies. . .
For the operating parameter operating -----------------------------------------------------------
applicable to you, as specified parameter limit. . Data averaging
in Table 2. . . . Data measurement Data recording period for
compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Exit temperature of the Maximum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
absorbing liquid. temperature. average.
2. Exit specific gravity........ Exit specific Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
gravity range. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers or process heaters
(with a design heat input capacity <44MW and vent stream is not introduced with or as the primary fuel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Firebox temperature.......... Minimum firebox Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalytic incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Temperature in gas stream Minimum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
immediately before the catalyst temperature. average.
bed.
5. Temperature difference Minimum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
between the catalyst bed inlet temperature average.
and the catalyst bed outlet. difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon adsorbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Total regeneration stream Minimum mass flow Continuously Every 15 minutes Total flow for
mass flow during carbon bed during carbon bed during during each regeneration
regeneration cycle(s). regeneration regeneration. regeneration cycle.
cycle(s). cycle.
7. Total regeneration stream Minimum volumetric Continuously Every 15 minutes Total flow for
volumetric flow during carbon flow during during during each regeneration
bed regeneration cycle(s). carbon bed regeneration. regeneration cycle.
regeneration cycle.
cycle(s).
8. Temperature of the carbon bed Maximum Continuously Every 15 minutes Average of
after regeneration [and within temperature of during during regeneration
15 minutes of completing any the carbon bed regeneration and regeneration cycle.
cooling cycle(s)]. after for 15 minutes cycle (including
regeneration. after completing any cooling
any cooling cycle).
cycle(s).
9. Breakthrough................. As defined in Sec. As required by Each monitoring N/A
60.611a. Sec. event.
60.613a(a)(6)(iii
)(B).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condensers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Exit (product side) Maximum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
temperature. temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubbers for halogenated vent streams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. pH of scrubber effluent..... Minimum pH........ Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
average.
12. Influent liquid flow........ Minimum inlet Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
liquid flow. average.
13. Influent liquid flow rate Minimum influent Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
and gas stream flow rate. liquid-to-gas average.
ratio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Firebox temperature......... Minimum firebox Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control devices other than an incinerator, boiler, process heater, or flare; or recovery devices other than an
absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. As specified by the As specified by As specified by As specified by As specified by
Administrator. the Administrator. the Administrator. the Administrator. the
Administrator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43105]]
Table 4 to Subpart IIIa of Part 60--Calibration and Quality Control
Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And your
If you monitor this parameter. . Your accuracy calibration
. requirements are. requirements are.
. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature................... a. 1 c. Performance
percent over the evaluation
normal range of annually and
temperature following any
measured or 2.8 period of more
degrees Celsius than 24 hours
(5 degrees throughout which
Fahrenheit), the temperature
whichever is exceeded the
greater, for non- maximum rated
cryogenic temperature of
temperature the sensor, or
ranges. the data
b. 2.5 recorder was off
percent over the scale.
normal range of d. Visual
temperature inspections and
measured or 2.8 checks of CPMS
degrees Celsius operation every
(5 degrees 3 months, unless
Fahrenheit), the CPMS has a
whichever is redundant
greater, for temperature
cryogenic sensor.
temperature e. Selection of a
ranges. representative
measurement
location.
2. Flow Rate..................... a. 5 d. Performance
percent over the evaluation
normal range of annually and
flow measured or following any
1.9 liters per period of more
minute (0.5 than 24 hours
gallons per throughout which
minute), the flow rate
whichever is exceeded the
greater, for maximum rated
liquid flow rate. flow rate of the
b. 5 sensor, or the
percent over the data recorder
normal range of was off scale.
flow measured or e. Checks of all
280 liters per mechanical
minute (10 cubic connections for
feet per minute), leakage monthly.
whichever is f. Visual
greater, for gas inspections and
flow rate. checks of CPMS
c. 5 operation every
percent over the 3 months, unless
normal range the CPMS has a
measured for mass redundant flow
flow rate. sensor.
g. Selection of a
representative
measurement
location where
swirling flow or
abnormal
velocity
distributions
due to upstream
and downstream
disturbances at
the point of
measurement are
minimized.
3. pH............................ a. 0.2 b. Performance
pH units. evaluation
annually.
Conduct a two-
point
calibration with
one of the two
buffer solutions
having a pH
within 1 of the
pH of the
operating limit.
c. Visual
inspections and
checks of CPMS
operation every
3 months, unless
the CPMS has a
redundant pH
sensor.
d. Select a
measurement
location that
provides a
representative
sample of
scrubber
effluent and
that ensures the
fluid is
properly mixed.
4. Specific Gravity.............. a. 0.02 evaluation
specific gravity annually.
units. c. Visual
inspections and
checks of CPMS
operation every
3 months, unless
the CPMS has a
redundant
specific gravity
sensor.
d. Select a
measurement
location that
provides a
representative
sample of
specific gravity
of the absorbing
liquid effluent
and that ensures
the fluid is
properly mixed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Revise the heading of subpart NNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNN--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions From Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations After December 30, 1983,
and on or Before April 25, 2023
0
27. Amend Sec. 60.660 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and
(c)(6) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.660 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(b) The affected facility is any of the following for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after December
30, 1983, and on or before April 25, 2023:
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) Each affected facility operated with a vent stream flow rate
less than 0.008 scm/min is exempt from all provisions of this subpart
except for the test method and procedure and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.664(h) and 60.665(i), (l)(5),
and (o).
* * * * *
(e) Owners and operators of flares that are subject to the flare
related requirements of this subpart and flare related requirements of
any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR part 61 or 63, may elect to
comply with the requirements in Sec. 60.669a in lieu of all flare
related requirements in any other regulation in this part or 40 CFR
part 61 or 63.
0
28. Amend Sec. 60.661 by revising the definition of ``Flame zone'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.661 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler
or process heater occupied by the flame envelope.
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 60.664 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) introductory text
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.664 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part to determine the
concentration of TOC in the control device outlet and the concentration
of TOC in the inlet when the reduction efficiency of the control device
is to be determined. ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. [thinsp]60.17) may be used in lieu of Method 18, if the target
compounds are all known and are all listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and
ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total VOC method.
* * * * *
(e) The following test methods, except as provided under Sec.
60.8(b), shall be used for determining the net heating value of the gas
combusted to determine compliance under Sec. 60.662(b) and for
determining the process vent stream TRE index value to determine
compliance under Sec. 60.662(c).
(1)(i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate,
for selection of the sampling site. The sampling site for the vent
stream flow rate and molar composition determination prescribed in
paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section shall be, except for the
situations outlined in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, prior to
the inlet of any control device, prior to any post-distillation
dilution of the stream with air, and prior to any post-distillation
introduction of halogenated compounds into the process vent stream. No
transverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller than 10
centimeters (4 inches) in diameter.
(ii) If any gas stream other than the distillation vent stream from
the affected facility is normally conducted through the final recovery
device.
[[Page 43106]]
(A) The sampling site for vent stream flow rate and molar
composition shall be prior to the final recovery device and prior to
the point at which the nondistillation stream is introduced.
(B) The efficiency of the final recovery device is determined by
measuring the TOC concentration using Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this
part, or ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
[thinsp]60.17) as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, at the
inlet to the final recovery device after the introduction of any
nondistillation vent stream and at the outlet of the final recovery
device.
(C) This efficiency is applied to the TOC concentration measured
prior to the final recovery device and prior to the introduction of the
nondistillation stream to determine the concentration of TOC in the
distillation vent stream from the final recovery device. This
concentration of TOC is then used to perform the calculations outlined
in Sec. 60.664(e)(4) and (5).
(2) The molar composition of the process vent stream shall be
determined as follows:
(i) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part, or ASTM D6420-18
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, to measure the concentration of TOC
including those containing halogens.
(ii) ASTM D1946-77 or 90 (Reapproved 1994) (incorporation by
reference as specified in Sec. 60.17 of this part) to measure the
concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
(iii) Method 4 of appendix A-3 to this part to measure the content
of water vapor.
(3) The volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 2,
2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate.
(4)(i) The net heating value of the vent stream shall be calculated
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.035
Where:
HT = Net heating value of the sample, MJ/scm (Btu/scf),
where the net enthalpy per mole of vent stream is based on
combustion at 25 [deg]C and 760 mm Hg (77 [deg]F and 30 in. Hg), but
the standard temperature for determining the volume corresponding to
one mole is 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F).
K1 = 1.74 x 10-7 (1/ppm) (g-mole/scm) (MJ/
kcal) (metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/scm) is
20 [deg]C.
= 1.03 x 10-11 (1/ppm) (lb-mole/scf) (Btu/kcal) (English
units) where standard temperature for (lb/mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
Cj = Concentration on a wet basis of compound j in ppm,
as measured for organics by Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part,
or ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
[thinsp]60.17) as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and
measured for hydrogen and carbon monoxide by ASTM D1946-77 or 90
(Reapproved 1994) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) as
indicated in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
Hj = Net heat of combustion of compound j, kcal/(g-mole)
[kcal/(lb-mole)], based on combustion at 25 [deg]C and 760 mm Hg (77
[deg]F and 30 in. Hg).
(ii) The heats of combustion of vent stream components would be
required to be determined using ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 60.17) if published values are not
available or cannot be calculated.
(5) The emission rate of TOC in the vent stream shall be calculated
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.036
Where:
ETOC = Measured emission rate of TOC, kg/hr (lb/hr).
K2 = 2.494 x 10-6 (1/ppm) (g-mole/scm) (kg/g)
(min/hr) (metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/scm)
is 20 [deg]C.
= 1.557 x 10-7 (1/ppm) (lb-mole/scf) (min/hr) (English
units), where standard temperature for (lb-mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
Cj = Concentration on a wet basis of compound j in ppm,
as measured by Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part, or ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) as
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, as indicated in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
Mj = Molecular weight of sample j, g/g-mole (lb/lb-mole).
Qs = Vent stream flow rate, scm/min (scf/min), at a
temperature of 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F).
(6) The total process vent stream concentration (by volume) of
compounds containing halogens (ppmv, by compound) shall be summed from
the individual concentrations of compounds containing halogens which
were measured by Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part, or ASTM D6420-
18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. [thinsp]60.17) as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 60.665 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(l) introductory text, (l)(5) and (6), and (m) and adding paragraphs
(q), (r), and (s) as follows:
Sec. 60.665 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the
following data measured during each performance test, and also include
the following data in the report of the initial performance test
required under Sec. 60.8. Where a boiler or process heater with a
design heat input capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater
is used to comply with Sec. 60.662(a), a report containing performance
test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the
information in Sec. 60.665(b)(2)(i) is required. The same data
specified in this section shall be submitted in the reports of all
subsequently required performance tests where either the emission
control efficiency of a control device, outlet concentration of TOC, or
the TRE index value of a vent stream from a recovery system is
determined. Beginning on July 15, 2024, owners and operators must
submit the performance test report following the procedures specified
in paragraph (q) of this section. Data collected using test methods
that are
[[Page 43107]]
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 using the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, the owner or operator 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 an
alternate electronic file.
* * * * *
(l) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the
requirements of this subpart by complying with the requirements of
Sec. 60.660 (c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6) or Sec. 60.662 shall submit to
the Administrator semiannual reports of the following recorded
information. The initial report shall be submitted within 6 months
after the initial start-up date. On and after July 15, 2025 or once the
report template for this subpart has been available on the Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1 year,
whichever date is later, owners and operators must submit all
subsequent reports using the appropriate electronic report template on
the CEDRI website for this subpart and following the procedure
specified in paragraph (q) of this section. 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.
* * * * *
(5) Any change in equipment or process operation that increases the
operating vent stream flow rate above the low flow exemption level in
Sec. 60.660(c)(6), including a measurement of the new vent stream flow
rate, as recorded under Sec. 60.665(i). These must be reported as soon
as possible after the change and no later than 180 days after the
change. These reports may be submitted either in conjunction with
semiannual reports or as a single separate report. A performance test
must be completed with the same time period to verify the recalculated
flow value and to obtain the vent stream characteristics of heating
value and ETOC. The performance test is subject to the
requirements of Sec. 60.8, and the performance test must be reported
according to paragraph (b) of this section. Unless the facility
qualifies for an exemption under the low capacity exemption status in
Sec. 60.660(c)(5), the facility must begin compliance with the
requirements set forth in Sec. 60.662.
(6) Any change in equipment or process operation, as recorded under
paragraph (j) of this section, that increases the design production
capacity above the low capacity exemption level in Sec. 60.660(c)(5)
and the new capacity resulting from the change for the distillation
process unit containing the affected facility. These must be reported
as soon as possible after the change and no later than 180 days after
the change. These reports may be submitted either in conjunction with
semiannual reports or as a single separate report. A performance test
must be completed within the same time period to obtain the vent stream
flow rate, heating value, and ETOC. The performance test is
subject to the requirements of Sec. 60.8, and the performance test
must be reported according to paragraph (b) of this section. The
facility must begin compliance with the requirements set forth in Sec.
60.660(d) or Sec. 60.662. If the facility chooses to comply with Sec.
60.662, the facility may qualify for an exemption in Sec. 60.660(c)(4)
or (6).
* * * * *
(m) The requirements of Sec. 60.665(l) remain in force until and
unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under
section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In
that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the
obligation to comply with Sec. 60.665(l), provided that they comply
with the requirements established by the State. The EPA will not
approve a waiver of electronic reporting to the EPA in delegating
enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be
waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph cannot be used to
relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement
to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
* * * * *
(q) If an owner or operator is required to submit notifications or
reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (q), the
owner or operator must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice
to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information the
owner or operator claims as CBI. Although the EPA does not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if an owner or operator wishes to
assert a CBI claim for some of the information in the report or
notification, the owner or operator must submit a complete file in the
format specified in this subpart, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in paragraphs (q)(1) and (2)
of this section. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that
claimed to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. The owner or
operator must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with the
CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph (q).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. Owners and operators who
do not have their own file sharing service and who require assistance
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments should email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(2) If an owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park,
[[Page 43108]]
North Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the attention of the
Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other files should be
sent to the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. The mailed CBI
material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings
should not show through the outer envelope.
(r) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system
outage, owners and operators must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (r)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(s) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the electronic
submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, owners and
operators must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (s)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) An owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) An owner or operator must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
31. Amend Sec. 60.668 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.668 Delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: Sec.
60.663(e) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to
the EPA required by this subpart.
0
32. Add subpart NNNa to read as follows:
Subpart NNNa--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions From Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After April
25, 2023
Sec.
60.660a Am I subject to this subpart?
60.661a What definitions must I know?
60.662a What standards and associated requirements must I meet?
60.663a What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
60.664a What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards?
60.665a What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
60.666a What do the terms associated with reconstruction mean for
this subpart?
60.667a What are the chemicals that I must produce to be affected by
subpart NNNa?
60.668a [Reserved]
60.669a What are my requirements if I use a flare to comply with
this subpart?
60.670a What are my requirements for closed vent systems?
Table 1 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for Vent Streams
Table 2 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Monitoring Requirements for
Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction of Total Organic
Compounds Emissions or a Limit of 20 Parts Per Million by Volume
Table 3 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Operating Parameters, Operating
Parameter Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance
Frequencies
Table 4 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Calibration and Quality Control
Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS)
Subpart NNNa--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions From Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After April
25, 2023
Sec. 60.660a Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you operate an affected
facility designated in paragraph (b) of this section that produces any
of the chemicals listed in Sec. 60.667a as a product, co-product, by-
product, or
[[Page 43109]]
intermediate, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The affected facility is any of the following for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after April 25,
2023:
(1) Each distillation unit not discharging its vent stream into a
recovery system.
(2) Each combination of a distillation unit and the recovery system
into which its vent stream is discharged.
(3) Each combination of two or more distillation units and the
common recovery system into which their vent streams are discharged.
(c) Exemptions from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section
are as follows:
(1) Any distillation unit operating as part of a process unit which
produces coal tar or beverage alcohols, or which uses, contains, and
produces no VOC is not an affected facility.
(2) Any distillation unit that is subject to the provisions of
subpart DDD is not an affected facility.
(3) Any distillation unit that is designed and operated as a batch
operation is not an affected facility.
(4) Each affected facility in a process unit with a total design
capacity for all chemicals produced within that unit of less than one
gigagram per year is exempt from all provisions of this subpart except
for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. 60.665a(h),
(j)(6), and (o).
(5) Each affected facility operated with a vent stream flow rate
less than 0.008 standard cubic meter per minute (scm/min) is exempt
from all provisions of this subpart except for the test method and
procedure and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.
60.664a(e) and Sec. 60.665a(i), (j)(7), and (p).
(6) Each affected facility operated with a vent stream flow rate
less than 0.001 pound per hour (lb/hr) of TOC is exempt from all
provisions of this subpart except for the test method and procedure and
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.664a(f)
and 60.665a(i), (j)(7), and (p).
(7) A vent stream going to a fuel gas system as defined in Sec.
63.661a.
Sec. 60.661a What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
Batch distillation operation means a noncontinuous distillation
operation in which a discrete quantity or batch of liquid feed is
charged into a distillation unit and distilled at one time. After the
initial charging of the liquid feed, no additional liquid is added
during the distillation operation.
Breakthrough means the time when the level of TOC, measured at the
outlet of the first bed, has been detected is at the highest
concentration allowed to be discharged from the adsorber system and
indicates that the adsorber bed should be replaced.
Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam.
By compound means by individual stream components, not carbon
equivalents.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an
emission point to a control device.
Continuous recorder means a data recording device recording an
instantaneous data value at least once every 15 minutes.
Distillation operation means an operation separating one or more
feed stream(s) into two or more exit stream(s), each exit stream having
component concentrations different from those in the feed stream(s).
The separation is achieved by the redistribution of the components
between the liquid and vapor-phase as they approach equilibrium within
the distillation unit.
Distillation unit means a device or vessel in which distillation
operations occur, including all associated internals (such as trays or
packing) and accessories (such as reboiler, condenser, vacuum pump,
steam jet, etc.), plus any associated recovery system.
Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler
or process heater occupied by the flame envelope.
Flow indicator means a device which indicates whether gas flow is
present in a vent stream.
Fuel gas means gases that are combusted to derive useful work or
heat.
Fuel gas system means the offsite and onsite piping and flow and
pressure control system that gathers gaseous stream(s) generated by
onsite operations, may blend them with other sources of gas, and
transports the gaseous stream for use as fuel gas in combustion devices
or in in-process combustion equipment such as furnaces and gas turbines
either singly or in combination.
Halogenated vent stream means any vent stream determined to have a
total concentration (by volume) of compounds containing halogens of 20
ppmv (by compound) or greater.
Incinerator means any enclosed combustion device that is used for
destroying organic compounds and does not extract energy in the form of
steam or process heat.
Pressure-assisted multi-point flare means a flare system consisting
of multiple flare burners in staged arrays whereby the vent stream
pressure is used to promote mixing and smokeless operation at the flare
burner tips. Pressure-assisted multi-point flares are designed for
smokeless operation at velocities up to Mach = 1 conditions (i.e.,
sonic conditions), can be elevated or at ground level, and typically
use cross-lighting for flame propagation to combust any flare vent
gases sent to a particular stage of flare burners.
Primary fuel means the fuel fired through a burner or a number of
similar burners. The primary fuel provides the principal heat input to
the device, and the amount of fuel is sufficient to sustain operation
without the addition of other fuels.
Process heater means a device that transfers heat liberated by
burning fuel to fluids contained in tubes, including all fluids except
water that is heated to produce steam.
Process unit means equipment assembled and connected by pipes or
ducts to produce, as intermediates or final products, one or more of
the chemicals in Sec. 60.667a. A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient fuel or raw materials and
sufficient product storage facilities.
Product means any compound or chemical listed in Sec. 60.667a that
is produced for sale as a final product as that chemical, or for use in
the production of other chemicals or compounds. By-products, co-
products, and intermediates are considered to be products.
Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment, such as an
absorber, carbon adsorber, or condenser, capable of and used for the
purpose of recovering chemicals for use, reuse, or sale.
Recovery system means an individual recovery device or series of
such devices applied to the same vent stream.
Relief valve means a valve used only to release an unplanned,
nonroutine discharge. A relief valve discharge results from an operator
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected cause that requires immediate venting of gas from
process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage.
[[Page 43110]]
Total organic compounds (TOC) means those compounds measured
according to the procedures in Method 18 of appendix A-6 of this part
or the concentration of organic compounds measured according to the
procedures in Method 21 or Method 25A of appendix A-7 of this part.
Vent stream means any gas stream discharged directly from a
distillation facility to the atmosphere or indirectly to the atmosphere
after diversion through other process equipment. The vent stream
excludes equipment leaks including, but not limited to, pumps,
compressors, and valves.
Sec. 60.662a What standards and associated requirements must I meet?
(a) You must comply with the emission limits and standards
specified in table 1 to this subpart and the requirements specified in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for each vent stream on and
after the date on which the initial performance test required by
Sec. Sec. 60.8 and 60.664a is completed, but not later than 60 days
after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected
facility will be operated, or 180 days after the initial start-up,
whichever date comes first. The standards in this section apply at all
times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As
provided in Sec. 60.11(f), this provision supersedes the exemptions
for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in the general
provisions in subpart A of this part.
(b) The following release events from an affected facility are a
violation of the emission limits and standards specified in table 1 to
this subpart.
(1) Any relief valve discharge to the atmosphere of a vent stream.
(2) The use of a bypass line at any time on a closed vent system to
divert emissions to the atmosphere, or to a control device or recovery
device not meeting the requirements specified in Sec. 60.663a.
(c) You may designate a vent stream as a maintenance vent if the
vent is only used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or
inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized,
degassed, or placed into service. You must comply with the applicable
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section for each
maintenance vent. Any vent stream designated as a maintenance vent is
only subject to the maintenance vent provisions in this paragraph (c)
and the associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.
60.665a(g), respectively.
(1) Prior to venting to the atmosphere, remove process liquids from
the equipment as much as practical and depressurize the equipment to
either: A flare meeting the requirements of Sec. 60.669a, as
applicable, or using any combination of a non-flare control device or
recovery device meeting the requirements in table 1 to this subpart
until one of the following conditions, as applicable, is met.
(i) The vapor in the equipment served by the maintenance vent has a
lower explosive limit (LEL) of less than 10 percent.
(ii) If there is no ability to measure the LEL 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 LEL of the
vapors in the maintenance vent (or inside the equipment if the
maintenance vent is a hatch or similar type of opening) is less than 10
percent.
(iii) The equipment served by the maintenance vent contains less
than 50 pounds of total VOC.
(iv) 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 (iii) of this section can be
met prior to installing or removing a blind flange or similar equipment
blind, then the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance
vent must be reduced to 2 psig or less before installing or removing
the equipment blind. During installation or removal of the equipment
blind, 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, you must determine the LEL or,
if applicable, equipment pressure using process instrumentation or
portable measurement devices and follow procedures for calibration and
maintenance according to manufacturer's specifications.
(3) For maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, you must determine mass of VOC
in the equipment served by the maintenance vent based on the equipment
size and contents after considering any contents drained or purged from
the equipment. Equipment size may be determined from equipment design
specifications. Equipment contents may be determined using process
knowledge.
Sec. 60.663a What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(5) through (7) of this
section, if you use a non-flare control device or recovery system to
comply with the TOC emission limit specified in table 1 to this
subpart, then you must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), (b),
and (c) of this section.
(1) Install a continuous parameter monitoring system(s) (CPMS) and
monitor the operating parameter(s) applicable to the control device or
recovery system as specified in table 2 to this subpart or established
according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Establish the applicable minimum, maximum, or range for the
operating parameter limit as specified in table 3 to this subpart or
established according to paragraph (c) of this section by calculating
the value(s) as the arithmetic average of operating parameter
measurements recorded during the three test runs conducted for the most
recent performance test. You may operate outside of the established
operating parameter limit(s) during subsequent performance tests in
order to establish new operating limits. You must include the updated
operating limits with the performance test results submitted to the
Administrator pursuant to Sec. 60.665a(b). Upon establishment of a new
operating limit, you must thereafter operate under the new operating
limit. If the Administrator determines that you did not conduct the
performance test in accordance with the applicable requirements or that
the operating limit established during the performance test does not
correspond to the conditions specified in Sec. 60.664a(a), then you
must conduct a new performance test and establish a new operating
limit.
(3) Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using
the minimum frequencies specified in table 3 to this subpart or
established according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) Comply with the calibration and quality control requirements as
specified in table 4 to this subpart or established according to
paragraph (c) of this section that are applicable to the CPMS used.
(5) Any vent stream introduced with primary fuel into a boiler or
process heater is exempt from the requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(6) If you vent emissions through a closed vent system to an
adsorber(s) that
[[Page 43111]]
cannot be regenerated or a regenerative adsorber(s) that is regenerated
offsite, then you must install a system of two or more adsorber units
in series and comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section in addition to the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(i) Conduct an initial performance test or design evaluation of the
adsorber and establish the breakthrough limit and adsorber bed life.
(ii) Monitor the TOC concentration through a sample port at the
outlet of the first adsorber bed in series according to the schedule in
paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(B) of this section. You must measure the
concentration of TOC using either a portable analyzer, in accordance
with Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part using methane, propane, or
isobutylene as the calibration gas or Method 25A of appendix A-7 of
this part using methane or propane as the calibration gas.
(iii) Comply with paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(A) of this section and
comply with the monitoring frequency according to paragraph
(a)(6)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when
breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 60.661a, is detected between the
first and second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh
canister) will become the new first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will
become the second adsorber. For purposes of this paragraph
(a)(6)(iii)(A), ``immediately'' means within 8 hours of the detection
of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55 gallons or less, and within 24
hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers greater than 55
gallons. You must monitor at the outlet of the first adsorber within 3
days of replacement to confirm it is performing properly.
(B) Based on the adsorber bed life established according to
paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section and the date the adsorbent was last
replaced, conduct monitoring to detect breakthrough at least monthly if
the adsorbent has more than 2 months of life remaining, at least weekly
if the adsorbent has between 2 months and 2 weeks of life remaining,
and at least daily if the adsorbent has 2 weeks or less of life
remaining.
(7) If you install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
to demonstrate compliance with the TOC standard in table 1 of this
subpart, you must comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
60.664a(g) in lieu of the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) and (c) of this section.
(b) If you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a boiler
or process heater, then the vent stream must be introduced into the
flame zone of the boiler or process heater.
(c) If you seek to demonstrate compliance with the standards
specified under Sec. 60.662a with control devices other than an
incinerator, boiler, process heater, or flare; or recovery devices
other than an absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber, you shall
provide to the Administrator prior to conducting the initial
performance test information describing the operation of the control
device or recovery device and the parameter(s) which would indicate
proper operation and maintenance of the device and how the parameter(s)
are indicative of control of TOC emissions. The Administrator may
request further information and will specify appropriate monitoring
procedures or requirements, including operating parameters to be
monitored, averaging times for determining compliance with the
operating parameter limits, and ongoing calibration and quality control
requirements.
Sec. 60.664a What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards?
(a) For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the emission
limits and standards specified in table 1 to this subpart, all affected
facilities must be run at full operating conditions and flow rates
during any performance test. Performance tests are not required if you
determine compliance using a CEMS that meets the requirements outlined
in paragraph (g) of this section.
(1) Conduct initial performance tests no later than the date
required by Sec. 60.8(a).
(2) Conduct subsequent performance tests no later than 60 calendar
months after the previous performance test.
(b) The following methods, except as provided in Sec. 60.8(b)
must, must be used as reference methods to determine compliance with
the emission limit or percent reduction efficiency specified in table 1
to this subpart for non-flare control devices and/or recovery systems.
(1) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate,
for selection of the sampling sites. The inlet sampling site for
determination of vent stream molar composition or TOC (less methane and
ethane) reduction efficiency shall be prior to the inlet of the control
device or, if equipped with a recovery system, then prior to the inlet
of the first recovery device in the recovery system.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part, as
appropriate, for determination of the gas volumetric flow rates.
(3) Method 3A of appendix A-2 to this part or the manual method in
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
[thinsp]60.17) must be used to determine the oxygen concentration
(%O2d) for the purposes of determining compliance with the 20 ppmv
limit. The sampling site must be the same as that of the TOC samples,
and the samples must be taken during the same time that the TOC samples
are taken. The TOC concentration corrected to 3 percent O2
(Cc) must be computed using the following equation:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (b)(3)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.037
Where:
Cc = Concentration of TOC corrected to 3 percent
O2, dry basis, ppm by volume.
CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, ppm by volume.
%O2d = Concentration of O2, dry basis, percent
by volume.
(4) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part to determine the
concentration of TOC in the control device outlet or in the outlet of
the final recovery device in a recovery system, and to determine the
concentration of TOC in the inlet when the reduction efficiency of the
control device or recovery system is to be determined. ASTM D6420-18
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) may be used in lieu of
Method 18, if the target compounds are all known and are all listed in
section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 may not be
used for methane and ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 must not be used as a
total VOC method.
(i) The sampling time for each run must be 1 hour in which either
an integrated sample or at least four grab samples must be taken. If
grab sampling
[[Page 43112]]
is used then the samples must be taken at 15-minute intervals.
(ii) The emission reduction (R) of TOC (minus methane and ethane)
must be determined using the following equation:
Equation 2 to Paragraph (b)(4)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.038
Where:
R = Emission reduction, percent by weight.
Ei = Mass rate of TOC entering the control device or
recovery system, kg/hr (lb/hr).
Eo = Mass rate of TOC discharged to the atmosphere, kg/hr
(lb/hr).
(iii) The mass rates of TOC (Ei, Eo) must be
computed using the following equations:
Equations 3 and 4 to Paragraph (b)(4)(iii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.039
Where:
Cij, Coj = Concentration of sample component
``j'' of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control
device or recovery system, respectively, dry basis, ppm by volume.
Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of sample
component ``j'' of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the
control device or recovery system, respectively, g/g-mole (lb/lb-
mole).
Qi, Qo = Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet
and outlet of the control device or recovery system, respectively,
dscm/min (dscf/min).
K2 = 2.494 x 10-6 (1/ppm)(g-mole/scm) (kg/g)
(min/hr) (metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/scm)
is 20 [deg]C.
= 1.557 x 10-7 (1/ppm) (lb-mole/scf) (min/hr) (English
units), where standard temperature for (lb-mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
(iv) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is the sum of the
individual components and must be computed for each run using the
following equation:
Equation 5 to Paragraph (b)(4)(iv)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.040
Where:
CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, ppm by volume.
Cj = Concentration of sample components ``j'', dry basis,
ppm by volume.
n = Number of components in the sample.
(c) The requirement for initial and subsequent performance tests
are waived, in accordance with Sec. 60.8(b), for the following:
(1) When a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater is used to seek to
comply with the emission limit or percent reduction efficiency
specified in table 1 to this subpart.
(2) When a vent stream is introduced into a boiler or process
heater with the primary fuel.
(3) When a boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste is used
for which the owner or operator:
(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H;
(ii) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H;
(iii) Has submitted a Notification of Compliance under 40 CFR
63.1207(j) and complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE; or
(iv) Complies with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE and will submit a
Notification of Compliance under 40 CFR 63.1207(j) by the date the
owner or operator would have been required to submit the initial
performance test report for this subpart.
(4) The Administrator reserves the option to require testing at
such other times as may be required, as provided for in section 114 of
the Act.
(d) For purposes of complying with the 98 weight-percent reduction
in Sec. 60.702a(a), if the vent stream entering a boiler or process
heater with a design capacity less than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) is
introduced with the combustion air or as secondary fuel, the weight-
percent reduction of TOC (minus methane and ethane) across the
combustion device shall be determined by comparing the TOC (minus
methane and ethane) in all combusted vent streams, primary fuels, and
secondary fuels with the TOC (minus methane and ethane) exiting the
combustion device.
(e) Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeking to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.660a(c)(5) must use
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part as appropriate,
for determination of volumetric flow rate. The owner or operator must
conduct three velocity traverses and determine the volumetric flow rate
for each traverse. If the pipe or duct is smaller than four inches in
diameter, the owner operator may conduct the measurement at the
centroid of the duct instead of conducting a traverse; the measurement
period must be at least five minutes long and data must be recorded at
least once every 30 seconds. Owners and operators who conduct the
determination with
[[Page 43113]]
Method 2A or 2D must record volumetric flow rate every 30 seconds for
at least five minutes.
(f) Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeking to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.660a(c)(6) must use the
following methods:
(1) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to this part, as appropriate.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-1 to this part, as
appropriate, for determination of the gas volumetric flow rates.
(3) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this part to determine the
concentration of TOC. ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) may be used in lieu of Method 18, if the target compounds
are all known and are all listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 as
measurable; ASTM D6420-18 may not be used for methane and ethane; and
ASTM D6420-18 must not be used as a total VOC method.
(i) The sampling site must be at a location that provides a
representative sample of the vent stream.
(ii) Perform three test runs. The sampling time for each run must
be 1 hour in which either an integrated sample or at least four grab
samples must be taken. If grab sampling is used then the samples must
be taken at 15-minute intervals.
(iii) The mass rate of TOC (E) must be computed using the following
equation:
Equation 6 to Paragraph (f)(3)(iii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.041
Where:
Cj = Concentration of sample component ``j'' of the gas
stream at the representative sampling location, dry basis, ppm by
volume.
Mj = Molecular weight of sample component ``j'' of the
gas stream at the representative sampling location, g/g-mole (lb/lb-
mole).
Q = Flow rate of gas stream at the representative sampling location,
dscm/min (dscf/min).
K = 2.494 x 10-6 (1/ppm)(g-mole/scm) (kg/g) (min/hr)
(metric units), where standard temperature for (g-mole/scm) is 20
[deg]C.
= 1.557 x 10-7 (1/ppm) (lb-mole/scf) (min/hr) (English
units), where standard temperature for (lb-mole/scf) is 68 [deg]F.
(g) If you use a CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the TOC standard in table 1 of this subpart, each CEMS
must be installed, operated and maintained according to the
requirements in Sec. 60.13 and paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You must use a CEMS that is capable of measuring the target
analyte(s) as demonstrated using either process knowledge of the
control device inlet stream or the screening procedures of Method 18 of
appendix A-6 to this part on the control device inlet stream. If your
CEMS is located after a combustion device and inlet stream to that
device includes methanol or formaldehyde, you must use a CEMS which
meets the requirements in Performance Specification 9 or 15 of appendix
B to this part.
(2) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable performance specification of appendix B to this part
and the applicable quality assurance procedures of appendix F to this
part. Locate the sampling probe or other interface at a measurement
location such that you obtain representative measurements of emissions
from the affected facility.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS within 180 days
of installation of the monitoring system. Conduct subsequent
performance evaluations of the CEMS no later than 12 calendar months
after the previous performance evaluation. The results each performance
evaluation must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 60.665a(b)(1).
(4) You must determine TOC concentration according to one of the
following options. The span value of the TOC CEMS must be approximately
2 times the emission standard specified in table 1 of this subpart.
(i) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification
15 of appendix B to this part, determine the target analyte(s) for
calibration using either process knowledge of the control device inlet
stream or the screening procedures of Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this
part on the control device inlet stream. The individual analytes used
to quantify TOC must represent 98 percent of the expected mass of TOC
present in the stream. Report the results of TOC as equivalent to
carbon (C1).
(ii) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification
9 of appendix B of this part, determine the target analyte(s) for
calibration using either process knowledge of the control device inlet
stream or the screening procedures of Method 18 of appendix A-6 to this
part on the control device inlet stream. The individual analytes used
to quantify TOC must represent 98 percent of the expected mass of TOC
present in the stream. Report the results of TOC as equivalent to
carbon (C1).
(iii) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 8 of appendix B to this part used to monitor performance
of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the predominant
organic HAP and report the results as carbon (C1), and use Method 25A
of appendix A-7 to this part as the reference method for the relative
accuracy tests. You must also comply with procedure 1 of appendix F to
this part.
(iv) For CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification
8 of appendix B to this part used to monitor performance of a
noncombustion device, determine the predominant organic compound using
either process knowledge or the screening procedures of Method 18 on
the control device inlet stream. Calibrate the monitor on the
predominant organic compound and report the results as C1.
Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to this part as the reference method for
the relative accuracy tests. You must also comply with procedure 1 of
appendix F to this part.
(5) You must determine stack oxygen concentration at the same
location where you monitor TOC concentration with a CEMS that meets the
requirements of Performance Specification 3 of appendix B to this part.
The span value of the oxygen CEMS must be approximately 25 percent
oxygen. Use Method 3A of appendix A-2 to this part as the reference
method for the relative accuracy tests.
(6) You must maintain written procedures for your CEMS. At a
minimum, the procedures must include the information in paragraph
(g)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section:
(i) Description of CEMS installation location.
[[Page 43114]]
(ii) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the
manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment components
and the span of the analyzer.
(iii) Routine quality control and assurance procedures.
(iv) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS performance evaluation,
which must include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; a process
change that is expected to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the
Administrator's request for a performance evaluation under section 114
of the Clean Air Act.
(v) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures.
Sec. 60.665a What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
(a) You must notify the Administrator of the specific provisions of
table 1 of this subpart or Sec. 60.662a(c) with which you have elected
to comply. Notification must be submitted with the notification of
initial start-up required by Sec. 60.7(a)(3). If you elect at a later
date to use an alternative provision of table 1 to this subpart with
which you will comply, then you must notify the Administrator 90 days
before implementing a change and, upon implementing the change, you
must conduct a performance test as specified by Sec. 60.664a within
180 days.
(b) If you use a non-flare control device or recovery system to
comply with the TOC emission limit specified in table 1 to this
subpart, then you must keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of
the data measured during each performance test to show compliance with
the TOC emission limit. You must also include all of the data you use
to comply with Sec. 60.663a(a)(2). The same data specified in this
paragraph must also be submitted in the initial performance test
required in Sec. 60.8 and the reports of all subsequently required
performance tests where either the emission reduction efficiency of a
control device or recovery system or outlet concentration of TOC is
determined. Alternatively, you must keep records of each CEMS
performance evaluation.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test or CEMS performance evaluation required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation
following the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this section.
Data collected using test methods and performance evaluations of CEMS
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants 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 or performance
evaluation must be submitted in a file format generated through the use
of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, owners and operators 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 and 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 test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or alternate electronic file.
(2) If you use a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater to comply with the
TOC emission limit specified in table 1 to this subpart, then you are
not required to submit a report containing performance test data;
however, you must submit a description of the location at which the
vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater.
(c) If you use a non-flare control device or recovery system to
comply with the TOC emission limit specified in Table 1 to this
subpart, then you must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of
periods of operation during which the operating parameter limits
established during the most recent performance test are exceeded or
periods of operation where the TOC CEMS, averaged on a 3-hour block
basis, indicate an exceedance of the emission standard in table 1 to
this subpart. Additionally, you must record all periods when the TOC
CEMS is inoperable. The Administrator may at any time require a report
of these data. Periods of operation during which the operating
parameter limits established during the most recent performance tests
are exceeded are defined as follows:
(1) For absorbers:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
absorbing liquid temperature was above the maximum absorbing liquid
temperature established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
absorbing liquid specific gravity was outside the exit specific gravity
range (i.e., more than 0.1 unit above, or more than 0.1 unit below, the
average absorbing liquid specific gravity) established during the most
recent performance test.
(2) For boilers or process heaters:
(i) Whenever there is a change in the location at which the vent
stream is introduced into the flame zone as required under Sec.
60.663a(b).
(ii) If the boiler or process heater has a design heat input
capacity of less than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr), then all 3-hour
periods of operation during which the average firebox temperature was
below the minimum firebox temperature during the most recent
performance test.
(3) For catalytic incinerators:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
temperature of the vent stream immediately before the catalyst bed is
below the minimum temperature of the vent stream established during the
most recent performance test.
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
temperature difference across the catalyst bed is less than the average
temperature difference of the device established during the most recent
performance test.
(4) For carbon adsorbers:
(i) All carbon bed regeneration cycles during which the total mass
stream flow or the total volumetric stream flow was below the minimum
flow established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) All carbon bed regeneration cycles during which the
temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration (and after completion
of any cooling cycle(s)) was greater than the maximum carbon bed
temperature (in degrees Celsius) established during the most recent
performance test.
(5) For condensers, all 3-hour periods of operation during which
the average exit (product side) condenser operating temperature was
above the maximum exit (product side) operating temperature established
during the most recent performance test.
(6) For scrubbers used to control halogenated vent streams:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average pH of
the scrubber effluent is below the minimum pH of the scrubber effluent
established during the most recent performance test.
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
influent liquid flow to the scrubber is below the minimum influent
liquid flow to the scrubber established during the most recent
performance test.
(iii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
liquid-to-gas ratio flow of the scrubber is below the minimum liquid-
to-gas ratio of the scrubber established during the most recent
performance test.
(7) For thermal incinerators, all 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average firebox temperature was
[[Page 43115]]
below the minimum firebox temperature established during the most
recent performance test.
(8) For all other control devices, all periods (for the averaging
time specified by the Administrator) when the operating parameter(s)
established under Sec. 60.663a(c) exceeded the operating limit
established during the most recent performance test.
(d) You must keep up to date, readily accessible continuous records
of the flow indication specified in table 2 to this subpart, as well as
up-to-date, readily accessible records of all periods when the vent
stream is diverted from the control device or recovery device or has no
flow rate, including the records as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) For each flow event from a relief valve discharge subject to
the requirements in Sec. 60.662a(b)(1), you must include an estimate
of the volume of gas, the concentration of TOC in the gas and the
resulting emissions of TOC that released to the atmosphere using
process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(2) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.662a(b)(2) and 60.670a(e), you must
maintain records sufficient to determine whether or not the detected
flow included flow requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass
line requiring control that is released either directly to the
atmosphere or to a control device or recovery device not meeting the
requirements in this subpart, you must include an estimate of the
volume of gas, the concentration of TOC in the gas and the resulting
emissions of TOC that bypassed the control device or recovery device
using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(e) If you use a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater to comply with the
TOC emission limit specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must
keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of all periods of
operation of the boiler or process heater. (Examples of such records
could include records of steam use, fuel use, or monitoring data
collected pursuant to other State or Federal regulatory requirements.)
(f) If you use a flare to comply with the TOC emission standard
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must keep up-to-date,
readily accessible records of all visible emission readings, heat
content determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the initial visible emissions demonstration
required by Sec. 63.670(h) of this chapter, as applicable; and all
periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame or
flare flame is absent.
(g) For each maintenance vent opening subject to the requirements
of Sec. 60.662a(c), you must keep the applicable records specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must maintain standard site procedures used to inventory
equipment for safety purposes (e.g., hot work or vessel entry
procedures) to document the procedures used to meet the requirements in
Sec. 60.662a(c). The current copy of the procedures must be retained
and available on-site at all times. Previous versions of the standard
site procedures, as applicable, must be retained for five years.
(2) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.662a(c)(1)(i),
and the lower explosive limit at the time of the vessel opening exceeds
10 percent, identification of the maintenance vent, the process units
or equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of
maintenance vent opening, and the lower explosive limit at the time of
the vessel opening.
(3) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.662a(c)(1)(ii),
and either the vessel pressure at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 5 psig or the lower explosive limit at the time of the active
purging was initiated exceeds 10 percent, 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 lower explosive limit of the vapors in the equipment
when active purging was initiated.
(4) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.662a(c)(1)(iii),
records of the estimating procedures used to determine the total
quantity of VOC in the equipment and the type and size limits of
equipment that contain less than 50 pounds of VOC at the time of
maintenance vent opening. For each maintenance vent opening that
contains greater than 50 pounds of VOC for which the inventory
procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section are not
followed or for which the equipment opened exceeds the type and size
limits established in the records specified in this paragraph (g)(4),
records that identify the maintenance vent, the process units or
equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of maintenance
vent opening, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in
the equipment at the time the maintenance vent was opened to the
atmosphere.
(5) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 60.662a(c)(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 lower explosive limit 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.
(h) If you seek to comply with the requirements of this subpart by
complying with the design production capacity provision in Sec.
60.660a(c)(4) you must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of
any change in equipment or process operation that increases the design
production capacity of the process unit in which the affected facility
is located.
(i) If you seek to comply with the requirements of this subpart by
complying with the flow rate cutoff in Sec. 60.660a(c)(5) or (6) you
must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records to indicate that the
vent stream flow rate is less than 0.008 scm/min (0.3 scf/min) or less
than 0.001 lb/hr, and of any change in equipment or process operation
that increases the operating vent stream flow rate, including a
measurement of the new vent stream flow rate.
(j) You must submit to the Administrator semiannual reports of the
information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (9) of this section.
You are exempt from the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
60.7(c). If there are no exceedances, periods, or events specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (9) of this section that occurred during the
reporting period, then you must include a statement in your report that
no exceedances, periods, and events specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (9) of this section occurred during the reporting period. The
initial report must be submitted within 6 months after the initial
start-up-date. On and after July 15, 2024 or once the report template
for
[[Page 43116]]
this subpart has been available on the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for 1 year, whichever date is later, you
must submit all subsequent reports using the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website for this subpart and following the
procedure specified in paragraph (k) of this section. 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. All semiannual reports
must include the following general information: company name, address
(including county), and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(1) Exceedances of monitored parameters recorded under paragraph
(c) of this section. For each exceedance, the report must include a
list of the affected facilities or equipment, the monitored parameter
that was exceeded, the start date and time of the exceedance, the
duration (in hours) of the exceedance, an estimate of the quantity in
pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, the cause of
the exceedance (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable,
and the corrective action taken.
(2) All periods recorded under paragraph (d) of this section when
the vent stream is diverted from the control device or recovery device,
or has no flow rate, including the information specified in paragraphs
(j)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For periods when the flow indicator is not operating, report
the identification of the flow indicator and the start date, start
time, and duration in hours.
(ii) For each flow event from a relief valve discharge subject to
the requirements in Sec. 60.662a(b)(1), the semiannual report must
include the identification of the relief valve, the start date, start
time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard
cubic feet, the concentration of TOC in the gas in parts per million by
volume and the resulting mass emissions of TOC in pounds that released
to the atmosphere.
(iii) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in Sec. 60.662a(b)(2) and Sec. 670a(e)(2), the
semiannual report must include the identification of the bypass line,
the start date, start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume
of gas in standard cubic feet, the concentration of TOC in the gas in
parts per million by volume and the resulting mass emissions of TOC in
pounds that bypass a control device or recovery device.
(3) All periods when a boiler or process heater was not operating
(considering the records recorded under paragraph (e) of this section),
including the start date, start time, and duration in hours of each
period.
(4) For each flare subject to the requirements in Sec. 60.669a,
the semiannual report must include an identification of the flare and
the items specified in Sec. 60.669a(l)(2).
(5) For each closed vent system subject to the requirements in
Sec. 60.670a, the semiannual report must include an identification of
the closed vent system and the items specified in Sec. 60.670a(i).
(6) Any change in equipment or process operation, as recorded under
paragraph (h) of this section, that increases the design production
capacity above the low capacity exemption level in Sec. 60.660a(c)(4)
and the new capacity resulting from the change for the distillation
process unit containing the affected facility. These must be reported
as soon as possible after the change and no later than 180 days after
the change. These reports may be submitted either in conjunction with
semiannual reports or as a single separate report. Unless the facility
qualifies for an exemption under Sec. 60.660a(c), the facility must
begin compliance with the requirements set forth in Sec. 60.662a.
(7) Any change in equipment or process operation that increases the
operating vent stream flow rate above the low flow exemption level in
Sec. 60.660a(c)(5) or (6), including a measurement of the new vent
stream flow rate, as recorded under paragraph (i) of this section.
These must be reported as soon as possible after the change and no
later than 180 days after the change. These reports may be submitted
either in conjunction with semiannual reports or as a single separate
report. A performance test must be completed with the same time period
to verify the recalculated flow value. The performance test is subject
to the requirements of Sec. 60.8 and must be submitted according to
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Unless the facility qualifies for an
exemption under Sec. 60.660a(c), the facility must begin compliance
with the requirements set forth in Sec. 60.662a.
(8) Exceedances of the emission standard in Table 1 of this subpart
as indicated by a 3-hour average of the TOC CEMS and recorded under
paragraph (c) of this section. For each exceedance, the report must
include a list of the affected facilities or equipment, the start date
and time of the exceedance, the duration (in hours) of the exceedance,
an estimate of the quantity in pounds of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the emission limit, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, the cause of the exceedance (including unknown
cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(9) Periods when the TOC CEMS was inoperative. For each period, the
report must include a list of the affected facilities or equipment, the
start date and time of the period, the duration (in hours) of the
period, the cause of the inoperability (including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(k) If you are required to submit notifications or reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph (k), you must
submit notifications or reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information in the report or notification, you must submit
a complete file in the format specified in this subpart, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in
paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark the part or all
of the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as
CBI may be authorized for public release without prior notice.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c),
emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier
in this paragraph (k).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
[[Page 43117]]
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings. ERT files should be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group; all other files should be flagged to
the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead. If assistance is needed
with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit
for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the
attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, and all other
files should be sent to the attention of the SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead.
The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked.
Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(l) If you are required to electronically submit notifications or
reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA
system outage for failure to timely comply with the electronic
submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (7) of this
section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(m) If you are required to electronically submit notifications or
reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply with the electronic submittal
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(n) The requirements of paragraph (j) of this section remain in
force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a
State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements
or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such
State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be
relieved of the obligation to comply with paragraph (j) of this
section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by
the State. The EPA will not approve a waiver of electronic reporting to
the EPA in delegating enforcement authority. Thus, electronic reporting
to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this
paragraph cannot be used to relieve owners or operators of affected
facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required
in this section to the EPA.
(o) If you seek to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.660(c)(4),
then you must submit to the Administrator an initial report detailing
the design production capacity of the process unit.
(p) If you seek to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.660(c)(5)
or (6), then you must submit to the Administrator, following the
procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an initial report
including a flow rate measurement using the test methods specified in
Sec. 60.664a.
(q) The Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and
recordkeeping requirements where the owner or operator of an affected
facility complies with the standards specified under Sec. 60.662a
other than as provided under Sec. 60.663a.
(r) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
Sec. 60.666a What do the terms associated with reconstruction mean
for this subpart?
For purposes of this subpart ``fixed capital cost of the new
components,'' as
[[Page 43118]]
used in Sec. 60.15, includes the fixed capital cost of all depreciable
components which are or will be replaced pursuant to all continuous
programs of component replacement which are commenced within any 2-year
period following April 25, 2023. For purposes of this paragraph,
``commenced'' means that you have undertaken a continuous program of
component replacement or that you have entered into a contractual
obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable time, a
continuous program of component replacement.
Sec. 60.667a What are the chemicals that I must produce to be
affected by subpart NNNa?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde......................................... 75-07-0
Acetaldol............................................ 107-89-1
Acetic acid.......................................... 64-19-7
Acetic anhydride..................................... 108-24-7
Acetone.............................................. 67-64-1
Acetone cyanohydrin.................................. 75-86-5
Acetylene............................................ 74-86-2
Acrylic acid......................................... 79-10-7
Acrylonitrile........................................ 107-13-1
Adipic acid.......................................... 124-04-9
Adiponitrile......................................... 111-69-3
Alcohols, C-11 or lower, mixtures.................... .................
Alcohols, C-12 or higher, mixtures................... .................
Allyl chloride....................................... 107-05-1
Amylene.............................................. 513-35-9
Amylenes, mixed...................................... .................
Aniline.............................................. 62-53-3
Benzene.............................................. 71-43-2
Benzenesulfonic acid................................. 98-11-3
Benzenesulfonic acid C10-16-alkyl derivatives, sodium 68081-81-2
salts...............................................
Benzoic acid, tech................................... 65-85-0
Benzyl chloride...................................... 100-44-7
Biphenyl............................................. 92-52-4
Bisphenol A.......................................... 80-05-7
Brometone............................................ 76-08-4
1,3-Butadiene........................................ 106-99-0
Butadiene and butene fractions....................... .................
n-Butane............................................. 106-97-8
1,4-Butanediol....................................... 110-63-4
Butanes, mixed....................................... .................
1-Butene............................................. 106-98-9
2-Butene............................................. 25167-67-3
Butenes, mixed....................................... .................
n-Butyl acetate...................................... 123-86-4
Butyl acrylate....................................... 141-32-2
n-Butyl alcohol...................................... 71-36-3
sec-Butyl alcohol.................................... 78-92-2
tert-Butyl alcohol................................... 75-65-0
Butylbenzyl phthalate................................ 85-68-7
Butylene glycol...................................... 107-88-0
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide............................. 75-91-2
2-Butyne-1,4-diol.................................... 110-65-6
Butyraldehyde........................................ 123-72-8
Butyric anhydride.................................... 106-31-0
Caprolactam.......................................... 105-60-2
Carbon disulfide..................................... 75-15-0
Carbon tetrabromide.................................. 558-13-4
Carbon tetrachloride................................. 56-23-5
Chlorobenzene........................................ 108-90-7
2-Chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine 1912-24-9
Chloroform........................................... 67-66-3
p-Chloronitrobenzene................................. 100-00-5
Chloroprene.......................................... 126-99-8
Citric acid.......................................... 77-92-9
Crotonaldehyde....................................... 4170-30-0
Crotonic acid........................................ 3724-65-0
Cumene............................................... 98-82-8
Cumene hydroperoxide................................. 80-15-9
Cyanuric chloride.................................... 108-77-0
Cyclohexane.......................................... 110-82-7
Cyclohexane, oxidized................................ 68512-15-2
Cyclohexanol......................................... 108-93-0
Cyclohexanone........................................ 108-94-1
Cyclohexanone oxime.................................. 100-64-1
Cyclohexene.......................................... 110-83-8
1,3-Cyclopentadiene.................................. 542-92-7
[[Page 43119]]
Cyclopropane......................................... 75-19-4
Diacetone alcohol.................................... 123-42-2
Dibutanized aromatic concentrate..................... .................
1,4-Dichlorobutene................................... 110-57-6
3,4-Dichloro-1-butene................................ 64037-54-3
Dichlorodifluoromethane.............................. 75-71-8
Dichlorodimethylsilane............................... 75-78-5
Dichlorofluoromethane................................ 75-43-4
Dichlorohydrin....................................... 96-23-1
Diethanolamine....................................... 111-42-2
Diethylbenzene....................................... 25340-17-4
Diethylene glycol.................................... 111-46-6
Di-n-heptyl-n-nonyl undecyl phthalate................ 85-68-7
Di-isodecyl phthalate................................ 26761-40-0
Diisononyl phthalate................................. 28553-12-0
Dimethylamine........................................ 124-40-3
Dimethyl terephthalate............................... 120-61-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene................................... 121-14-2
2,4-(and 2,6)-dinitrotoluene......................... 121-14-2
606-20-2
Dioctyl phthalate.................................... 117-81-7
Dodecene............................................. 25378-22-7
Dodecylbenzene, non linear........................... .................
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid.......................... 27176-87-0
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, sodium salt............. 25155-30-0
Epichlorohydrin...................................... 106-89-8
Ethanol.............................................. 64-17-5
Ethanolamine......................................... 141-43-5
Ethyl acetate........................................ 141-78-6
Ethyl acrylate....................................... 140-88-5
Ethylbenzene......................................... 100-41-4
Ethyl chloride....................................... 75-00-3
Ethyl cyanide........................................ 107-12-0
Ethylene............................................. 74-85-1
Ethylene dibromide................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.................................. 107-06-2
Ethylene glycol...................................... 107-21-1
Ethylene glycol monobutyl............................ 111-76-2
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether...................... 110-80-5
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate.............. 111-15-9
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether..................... 109-86-4
Ethylene oxide....................................... 75-21-8
2-Ethylhexanal....................................... 26266-68-2
2-Ethylhexyl alcohol................................. 104-76-7
(2-Ethylhexyl) amine................................. 104-75-6
Ethylmethylbenzene................................... 25550-14-5
6-Ethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro 9,10-anthracenedione...... 15547-17-8
Formaldehyde......................................... 50-00-0
Glycerol............................................. 56-81-5
n-Heptane............................................ 142-82-5
Heptenes (mixed)..................................... .................
Hexadecyl chloride................................... .................
Hexamethylene diamine................................ 124-09-4
Hexamethylene diamine adipate........................ 3323-53-3
Hexamethylenetetramine............................... 100-97-0
Hexane............................................... 110-54-3
2-Hexenedinitrile.................................... 13042-02-9
3-Hexenedinitrile.................................... 1119-85-3
Hydrogen cyanide..................................... 74-90-8
Isobutane............................................ 75-28-5
Isobutanol........................................... 78-83-1
Isobutylene.......................................... 115-11-7
Isobutyraldehyde..................................... 78-84-2
Isodecyl alcohol..................................... 25339-17-7
Isooctyl alcohol..................................... 26952-21-6
Isopentane........................................... 78-78-4
Isophthalic acid..................................... 121-91-5
Isoprene............................................. 78-79-5
Isopropanol.......................................... 67-63-0
Ketene............................................... 463-51-4
Linear alcohols, ethoxylated, mixed.................. .................
Linear alcohols, ethoxylated, and sulfated, sodium .................
salt, mixed.........................................
Linear alcohols, sulfated, sodium salt, mixed........ .................
Linear alkylbenzene.................................. 123-01-3
[[Page 43120]]
Magnesium acetate.................................... 142-72-3
Maleic anhydride..................................... 108-31-6
Melamine............................................. 108-78-1
Mesityl oxide........................................ 141-79-7
Methacrylonitrile.................................... 126-98-7
Methanol............................................. 67-56-1
Methylamine.......................................... 74-89-5
ar-Methylbenzenediamine.............................. 25376-45-8
Methyl chloride...................................... 74-87-3
Methylene chloride................................... 75-09-2
Methyl ethyl ketone.................................. 78-93-3
Methyl iodide........................................ 74-88-4
Methyl isobutyl ketone............................... 108-10-1
Methyl methacrylate.................................. 80-62-6
2-Methylpentane...................................... 107-83-5
1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone............................... 872-50-4
Methyl tert-butyl ether.............................. .................
Naphthalene.......................................... 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene......................................... 98-95-3
1-Nonene............................................. 27215-95-8
Nonyl alcohol........................................ 143-08-8
Nonylphenol.......................................... 25154-52-3
Nonylphenol, ethoxylated............................. 9016-45-9
Octene............................................... 25377-83-7
Oil-soluble petroleum sulfonate, calcium salt........ .................
Oil-soluble petroleum sulfonate, sodium salt......... .................
Pentaerythritol...................................... 115-77-5
n-Pentane............................................ 109-66-0
3-Pentenenitrile..................................... 4635-87-4
Pentenes, mixed...................................... 109-67-1
Perchloroethylene.................................... 127-18-4
Phenol............................................... 108-95-2
1-Phenylethyl hydroperoxide.......................... 3071-32-7
Phenylpropane........................................ 103-65-1
Phosgene............................................. 75-44-5
Phthalic anhydride................................... 85-44-9
Propane.............................................. 74-98-6
Propionaldehyde...................................... 123-38-6
Propionic acid....................................... 79-09-4
Propyl alcohol....................................... 71-23-8
Propylene............................................ 115-07-1
Propylene chlorohydrin............................... 78-89-7
Propylene glycol..................................... 57-55-6
Propylene oxide...................................... 75-56-9
Sodium cyanide....................................... 143-33-9
Sorbitol............................................. 50-70-4
Styrene.............................................. 100-42-5
Terephthalic acid.................................... 100-21-0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................ 79-34-5
Tetraethyl lead...................................... 78-00-2
Tetrahydrofuran...................................... 109-99-9
Tetra (methyl-ethyl) lead............................ .................
Tetramethyl lead..................................... 75-74-1
Toluene.............................................. 108-88-3
Toluene-2,4-diamine.................................. 95-80-7
Toluene-2,4-(and, 2,6)-diisocyanate (80/20 mixture).. 26471-62-5
Tribromomethane...................................... 75-25-2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane................................ 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................ 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene.................................... 79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane............................... 75-69-4
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane................ 76-13-1
Triethanolamine...................................... 102-71-6
Triethylene glycol................................... 112-27-6
Vinyl acetate........................................ 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride....................................... 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.................................. 75-35-4
m-Xylene............................................. 108-38-3
o-Xylene............................................. 95-47-6
p-Xylene............................................. 106-42-3
Xylenes (mixed)...................................... 1330-20-7
[[Page 43121]]
m-Xylenol............................................ 576-26-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Registry numbers assigned
to specific chemicals, isomers, or mixtures of chemicals. Some isomers
or mixtures that are covered by the standards do not have CAS numbers
assigned to them. The standards apply to all of the chemicals listed,
whether CAS numbers have been assigned or not.
Sec. 60.668a [Reserved]
Sec. 60.669a What are my requirements if I use a flare to comply with
this subpart?
(a) If you use a flare to comply with the TOC emission standard
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must meet the applicable
requirements for flares as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.670 and 63.671 of
this chapter, including the provisions in tables 12 and 13 to part 63,
subpart CC, of this chapter, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (o) of this section. This requirement also applies to any flare
using fuel gas from a fuel gas system, of which 50 percent or more of
the fuel gas is derived from an affected facility, as determined on an
annual average basis. For purposes of compliance with this paragraph
(a), the following terms are defined in Sec. 63.641 of this chapter:
Assist air, assist steam, center steam, combustion zone, combustion
zone gas, flare, flare purge gas, flare supplemental gas, flare sweep
gas, flare vent gas, lower steam, net heating value, perimeter assist
air, pilot gas, premix assist air, total steam, and upper steam.
(b) When determining compliance with the pilot flame requirements
specified in Sec. 63.670(b) and (g) of this chapter, substitute
``pilot flame or flare flame'' for each occurrence of ``pilot flame.''
(c) When determining compliance with the flare tip velocity and
combustion zone operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) and (e)
of this chapter, the requirement effectively applies starting with the
15-minute block that includes a full 15 minutes of the flaring event.
You are required to demonstrate compliance with the velocity and NHVcz
requirements starting with the block that contains the fifteenth minute
of a flaring event. You are not required to demonstrate compliance for
the previous 15-minute block in which the event started and contained
only a fraction of flow.
(d) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(o)(2)(i) of this
chapter, you must develop and implement the flare management plan no
later than startup for a new flare that commenced construction on or
after April 25, 2023.
(e) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(o)(2)(iii) of this
chapter, 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) following the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.665a(k).
(f) Section 63.670(o)(3)(ii) of this chapter and all references to
it do not apply. Instead, you must comply with the maximum flare tip
velocity operating limit at all times.
(g) Substitute ``affected facility'' for each occurrence of
``petroleum refinery.''
(h) Each occurrence of ``refinery'' does not apply.
(i) If a pressure-assisted multi-point flare is used as a control
device, then you must meet the following conditions:
(1) You are not required to comply with the flare tip velocity
requirements in Sec. 63.670(d) and (k) of this chapter;
(2) The NHVcz for pressure-assisted mulit-point flares is 800 Btu/
scf;
(3) You must determine the 15-minute block average NHVvg using only
the direct calculation method specified in in Sec. 63.670(l)(5)(ii) of
this chapter;
(4) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(b) and (g) of this
chapter, if a pressure-assisted multi-point flare uses cross-lighting
on a stage of burners rather than having an individual pilot flame on
each burner, then you must operate each stage of the pressure-assisted
multi-point flare with a flame present at all times when regulated
material is routed to that stage of burners. Each stage of burners that
cross-lights in the pressure-assisted multi-point 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. Each 15-minute block during which there is at least one minute
where no pilot flame is present on a stage of burners 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 pilot flame(s) on each stage of
burners that use cross-lighting must be continuously monitored by a
thermocouple or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence
of a flame;
(5) Unless you choose to conduct a cross-light performance
demonstration as specified in this paragraph (i)(5), you 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 you conduct a performance demonstration
that confirms the pressure-assisted multi-point 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. The compliance demonstration must be approved by the
permitting authority and a copy of this approval must be maintained
onsite. The compliance demonstration report must include: a protocol
describing the test methodology used, associated test method QA/QC
parameters, the waste gas composition and NHVcz of the gas tested, the
velocity of the waste gas tested, the pressure-assisted multi-point
flare burner tip pressure, the time, length, and duration of the test,
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, records of maintaining a stable flame after a successful cross-
light and the duration for which this was observed, records of any
smoking events during the cross-light, waste gas temperature,
meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, barometric
pressure, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity), and whether
there were any observed flare flameouts; and
(6) You 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 to part 63,
subpart CC, of this chapter.
(7) If a pressure-assisted multi-point flare is operating under the
requirements of an approved alternative means of emission limitations,
you must either continue to comply with the terms of the alternative
means of emission limitations or comply with the provisions in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (6) of this section.
(j) If you choose to determine compositional analysis for net
heating value with a continuous process mass
[[Page 43122]]
spectrometer, then you must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.671(e)(2) of this
chapter. You may augment the minimum list of calibration gas components
found in Sec. 63.671(e)(2) with compounds found during a pre-survey or
known to be in the gas through process knowledge.
(2) Calibration gas cylinders 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 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 Performance
Specification 9 of appendix B of this part, for continuous monitoring
system acceptance including, but not limited to, performing an initial
multi-point calibration check at three concentrations following the
procedure in Section 10.1 and performing the periodic calibration
requirements listed for gas chromatographs in table 13 to part 63,
subpart CC, of this chapter, for the process mass spectrometer. You may
use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net Heating
Value by Gas Chromatograph in table 13 to part 63, subpart CC, of this
chapter.
(7) The average instrument calibration error (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
equation 1 to this paragraph (j)(7).
Equation 1 to Paragraph (j)(7)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.042
Where:
Cm = Average instrument response (ppm)
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm)
(k) If you use a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for
compositional analysis for net heating value, then you may choose to
use the CE of NHVmeasured versus the cylinder tag value NHV
as the measure of agreement for daily calibration and quarterly audits
in lieu of determining the compound-specific CE. The CE for NHV at any
calibration level must not differ by more than 10 percent from the
certified cylinder gas value. The CE must be calculated using equation
2 to this paragraph (k).
Equation 2 to Paragraph (k)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY24.043
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)
(l) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(q) of this chapter, you
must comply with the reporting requirements specified in paragraphs
(l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The notification requirements specified in Sec. 60.665a(a).
(2) The semiannual report specified in Sec. 60.665a(j)(4) must
include the items specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (vi) of
this section.
(i) Records as specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this section for
each 15-minute block during which there was at least one minute when
regulated material is routed to a flare and no pilot flame or flare
flame is present. Include the start and stop time and date of each 15-
minute block.
(ii) Visible emission records as specified in paragraph (m)(2)(iv)
of this section for each period of 2 consecutive hours during which
visible emissions exceeded a total of 5 minutes.
(iii) The periods specified in paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
Indicate the date and start and end times for each period, and the net
heating value operating parameter(s) determined following the methods
in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) of this chapter as applicable.
(iv) For flaring events meeting the criteria in Sec. 63.670(o)(3)
of this chapter and paragraph (f) of this section:
(A) The start and stop time and date of the flaring event.
(B) The length of time in minutes for which emissions were visible
from the flare during the event.
(C) For steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-assisted flares, the
start date, start time, and duration in minutes for periods of time
that the flare tip velocity exceeds the maximum flare tip velocity
determined using the methods in Sec. 63.670(d)(2) of this chapter and
the maximum 15-minute block average flare tip velocity in ft/sec
recorded during the event.
(D) 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.
(v) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, the periods of time
when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the burners
operating outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications.
Indicate the date and start and end times for each period.
(vi) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, the periods of time
when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a
stage should not be in operation and is or when a stage should be in
operation and is not. Indicate the date and start and end times for
each period.
(m) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(p) of this chapter, you
must keep the flare monitoring records specified in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (14) of this section.
(1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to
detect the presence of a pilot flame or flare flame as required in
Sec. 63.670(b) of this chapter
[[Page 43123]]
and the presence of a pilot flame as required in paragraph (i)(4) of
this section for a minimum of 2 years. Retain records of each 15-minute
block during which there was at least one minute that no pilot flame or
flare flame is present when regulated material is routed to a flare for
a minimum of 5 years. For a pressure-assisted multi-point flare that
uses cross-lighting, retain records of each 15-minute block during
which there was at least one minute that no pilot flame is present on
each stage when regulated material is routed to a flare for a minimum
of 5 years. You may reduce the collected minute-by-minute data to a 15-
minute block basis with an indication of whether there was at least one
minute where no pilot flame or flare flame was present.
(2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations as
specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable, for a minimum of 3 years.
(i) To determine when visible emissions observations are required,
the record must identify all periods when regulated material is vented
to the flare.
(ii) If visible emissions observations are performed using Method
22 of appendix A-7 of this part, then the record must identify whether
the visible emissions observation was performed, the results of each
observation, total duration of observed visible emissions, and whether
it was a 5-minute or 2-hour observation. Record the date and start time
of each visible emissions observation.
(iii) If a video surveillance camera is used pursuant to Sec.
63.670(h)(2) of this chapter, then the record must include all video
surveillance images recorded, with time and date stamps.
(iv) For each 2-hour period for which visible emissions are
observed for more than 5 minutes in 2 consecutive hours, then the
record must include the date and start and end time of the 2-hour
period and an estimate of the cumulative number of minutes in the 2-
hour period for which emissions were visible.
(3) The 15-minute block average cumulative flows for flare vent gas
and, if applicable, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix
assist air specified to be monitored under Sec. 63.670(i) of this
chapter, along with the date and time interval for the 15-minute block.
If multiple monitoring locations are used to determine cumulative vent
gas flow, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix assist air,
then retain records of the 15-minute block average flows for each
monitoring location for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute
block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent calculations
for a minimum of 5 years. If pressure and temperature monitoring is
used, then retain records of the 15-minute block average temperature,
pressure, and molecular weight of the flare vent gas or assist gas
stream for each measurement location used to determine the 15-minute
block average cumulative flows for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the
15-minute block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent
calculations for a minimum of 5 years.
(4) The flare vent gas compositions specified to be monitored under
Sec. 63.670(j) of this chapter. Retain records of individual component
concentrations from each compositional analysis for a minimum of 2
years. If an NHVvg analyzer is used, retain records of the 15-minute
block average values for a minimum of 5 years.
(5) Each 15-minute block average operating parameter calculated
following the methods specified in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) this
chapter, as applicable.
(6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the
applicable operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) of
this chapter and paragraph (i) of this section when regulated material
is being routed to the flare.
(7) All periods during which you do not perform flare monitoring
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.670(g) through (j) of this
chapter.
(8) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, if a stage of burners
on the flare uses cross-lighting, then a record of any changes made to
the distance between burners.
(9) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, all periods when the
pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show burners are operating
outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the
date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s)
and number of burners affected, and the range of manufacturer's
specifications.
(10) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, all periods when the
staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of
the pressure-assisted multi-point flare should not be in operation and
when a stage of the pressure-assisted multi-point flare should be in
operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period,
whether the stage was supposed to be open, but was closed or vice
versa, and the stage(s) and number of burners affected.
(11) Records of periods when there is flow of vent gas to the
flare, but when there is no flow of regulated material to the flare,
including the start and stop time and dates of periods of no regulated
material flow.
(12) Records when the flow of vent gas exceeds the smokeless
capacity of the flare, including start and stop time and dates of the
flaring event.
(13) Records of the root cause analysis and corrective action
analysis conducted as required in Sec. 63.670(o)(3) of this chapter
and paragraph (f) of this section, including an identification of the
affected flare, the date and duration of the event, a statement noting
whether the event resulted from the same root cause(s) identified in a
previous analysis and either a description of the recommended
corrective action(s) or an explanation of why corrective action is not
necessary under Sec. 63.670(o)(5)(i) of this chapter.
(14) For any corrective action analysis for which implementation of
corrective actions are required in Sec. 63.670(o)(5) of this chapter,
a description of the corrective action(s) completed within the first 45
days following the discharge and, for action(s) not already completed,
a schedule for implementation, including proposed commencement and
completion dates.
(n) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions
limitation requirements specified in Sec. 63.670(r) of this chapter in
lieu of the requirements in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) of this
chapter, as applicable. However, instead of complying with Sec.
63.670(r)(3)(iii) of this chapter, you must also submit the alternative
means of emissions limitation request to the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom
(C404-02), Attention: SOCMI NSPS Sector Lead, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703.
(o) The referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (o)(1)
through (4) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this section.
(1) Section 63.670(o)(4)(iv) of this chapter.
(2) The last sentence of Sec. 63.670(o)(6) of this chapter.
(3) The phrase ``that were not caused by a force majeure event'' in
Sec. 63.670(o)(7)(ii) of this chapter.
(4) The phrase ``that were not caused by a force majeure event'' in
Sec. 63.670(o)(7)(iv) of this chapter.
Sec. 60.670a What are my requirements for closed vent systems?
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section,
you must inspect each closed vent system
[[Page 43124]]
according to the procedures and schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section unless the closed vent system is operated
and maintained under negative pressure;
(2) Conduct annual inspections according to the procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section unless the closed vent system is operated
and maintained under negative pressure; and
(3) Conduct annual inspections for visible, audible, or olfactory
indications of leaks.
(b) You must inspect each closed vent system according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Inspections must be conducted in accordance with Method 21 of
appendix A of this part.
(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section,
the detection instrument must meet the performance criteria of Method
21 of appendix A of this part, except the instrument response factor
criteria in section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 must be for the average
composition of the process fluid not each individual volatile organic
compound in the stream. For process streams that contain nitrogen, air,
or other inerts which are not organic hazardous air pollutants or
volatile organic compounds, the average stream response factor must be
calculated on an inert-free basis.
(ii) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet
the performance criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the
average response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-
free basis as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i).
(3) The detection instrument must be calibrated before use on each
day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 of appendix A
of this part.
(4) Calibration gases must be as follows:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million hydrocarbon in air);
and
(ii) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 2,000
parts per million. A calibration gas other than methane in air may be
used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument
does not meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i)
of this section. In such cases, the calibration gas may be a mixture of
one or more of the compounds to be measured in air.
(5) You may elect to adjust or not adjust instrument readings for
background. If you elect to not adjust readings for background, all
such instrument readings must be compared directly to the applicable
leak definition to determine whether there is a leak.
(6) If you elect to adjust instrument readings for background, you
must determine the background concentration using Method 21 of appendix
A of this part. After monitoring each potential leak interface,
subtract the background reading from the maximum concentration
indicated by the instrument. The arithmetic difference between the
maximum concentration indicated by the instrument and the background
level must be compared with 500 parts per million for determining
compliance.
(c) Leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500
parts per million above background or by visual, audio, or olfactory
inspections, must be repaired as soon as practicable, except as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 calendar
days after the leak is detected.
(2) Repair must be completed no later than 15 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(d) Delay of repair of a closed vent system for which leaks have
been detected is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible
without a shutdown, as defined in Sec. 60.2, or if you determine that
emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the
fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of
such equipment must be complete by the end of the next shutdown.
(e) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that
could divert a vent stream away from the control device and to the
atmosphere, you must comply with the provisions of either paragraph
(e)(1) or (2), except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
determines whether vent stream flow is present at least once every 15
minutes. You must keep hourly records of whether the flow indicator was
operating and whether a diversion was detected at any time during the
hour, as well as records of the times and durations of all periods when
the vent stream is diverted to the atmosphere or the flow indicator is
not operating. The flow indicator must be installed at the entrance to
any bypass line; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the
seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every month
to ensure the valve is maintained in the closed position and the vent
stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
(3) Open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind flange, plug,
or second valve and follow the requirements specified in Sec. 60.482-
6(a)(2), (b), and (c) or follow requirements codified in another
regulation that are the same as Sec. 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) are
not subject to this paragraph (e) of this section.
(f) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as
described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, as unsafe to inspect are
exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section if:
(1) You determine that the equipment is unsafe to inspect because
inspecting personnel would be exposed to an imminent or potential
danger as a consequence of complying with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section; and
(2) You have a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-to-inspect times.
(g) Any parts of the closed vent system are designated, as
described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, as difficult to inspect
are exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section if:
(1) You determine that the equipment cannot be inspected without
elevating the inspecting personnel more than 2 meters above a support
surface; and
(2) You have a written plan that requires inspection of the
equipment at least once every 5 years.
(h) You must record the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system that are
designated as unsafe to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment is
unsafe to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(2) Identification of all parts of the closed vent system that are
designated as difficult to inspect, an explanation of why the equipment
is difficult to inspect, and the plan for inspecting the equipment.
(3) For each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that
could divert a vent stream away from the control device and to the
atmosphere, you must keep a record of the information specified in
either paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section in addition to the
[[Page 43125]]
information specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator specified under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section was operating and whether a diversion
was detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the
times of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control
device or the flow indicator is not operating.
(ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with paragraph (e)(2)
of this section, hourly records of flow are not required. In such
cases, you must record whether the monthly visual inspection of the
seals or closure mechanisms has been done, and you must record the
occurrence of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass
line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type
configuration has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that
has broken.
(iii) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in paragraph (e) of this section, you must maintain
records sufficient to determine whether or not the detected flow
included flow requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass line
requiring control that is released either directly to the atmosphere or
to a control device not meeting the requirements in this subpart, you
must include an estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of VOC
in the gas and the resulting emissions of VOC that bypassed the control
device using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(4) For each inspection during which a leak is detected, a record
of the information specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (viii) of
this section.
(i) The instrument identification numbers; operator name or
initials; and identification of the equipment.
(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of the first
attempt to repair the leak.
(iii) Maximum instrument reading measured by the method specified
in paragraph (c) of this section after the leak is successfully
repaired or determined to be nonrepairable.
(iv) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is
not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
(v) The name, initials, or other form of identification of the
owner or operator (or designee) whose decision it was that repair could
not be effected without a shutdown.
(vi) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak
is not repaired within 15 calendar days.
(vii) Dates of shutdowns that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(viii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(5) For each inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph (b)
of this section during which no leaks are detected, a record that the
inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a statement
that no leaks were detected.
(6) For each inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph
(a)(3) of this section during which no leaks are detected, a record
that the inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a
statement that no leaks were detected.
(i) The semiannual report specified in Sec. 60.665a(j)(5) must
include the items specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Reports of the times of all periods recorded under paragraph
(h)(3)(i) of this section when the vent stream is diverted from the
control device through a bypass line. Include the start date, start
time, and duration in hours of each period.
(2) Reports of all periods recorded under paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of
this section in which the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line
valve position has changed, or the key to unlock the bypass line valve
was checked out. Include the start date, start time, and duration in
hours of each period.
(3) For bypass lines subject to the requirements in paragraph (e)
of this section, the semiannual reports must include the start date,
start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in
standard cubic feet, the concentration of VOC in the gas in parts per
million by volume and the resulting mass emissions of VOC in pounds
that bypass a control device. For periods when the flow indicator is
not operating, report the start date, start time, and duration in
hours.
Table 1 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards for
Vent Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Vent stream.................... a. Reduce emissions of TOC (minus
methane and ethane) by 98 weight-
percent, or to a TOC (minus methane
and ethane) concentration of 20
ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3
percent oxygen by venting emissions
through a closed vent system to any
combination of non-flare control
devices and/or recovery system and
meet the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.663a and Sec. 60.670a;
or
b. Reduce emissions of TOC (minus
methane and ethane) by venting
emissions through a closed vent
system to a flare and meet the
requirements specified in Sec.
60.669a and Sec. 60.670a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Monitoring Requirements for
Complying With 98 Weight-Percent Reduction of Total Organic Compounds
Emissions or a Limit of 20 Parts per Million by Volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-flare control device or
recovery device Parameters to be monitored
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All control and recovery a. Presence of flow diverted to the
devices. atmosphere from the control and
recovery device; or
b. Monthly inspections of sealed
valves
2. Absorber...................... a. Exit temperature of the absorbing
liquid; and
b. Exit specific gravity
3. Boiler or process heater with Firebox temperature \a\
a design heat input capacity
less than 44 megawatts and vent
stream is not introduced with or
as the primary fuel.
4. Catalytic incinerator......... Temperature upstream and downstream
of the catalyst bed
5. Carbon adsorber, regenerative. a. Total regeneration stream mass or
volumetric flow during carbon bed
regeneration cycle(s); and
b. Temperature of the carbon bed
after regeneration [and within 15
minutes of completing any cooling
cycle(s)]
[[Page 43126]]
6. Carbon adsorber, non- Breakthrough
regenerative or regenerated
offsite.
7. Condenser..................... Exit (product side) temperature
8. Scrubber for halogenated vent a. pH of scrubber effluent; and
streams.
b. Scrubber liquid and gas flow rates
9. Thermal incinerator........... Firebox temperature \a\
10. Control devices other than an As specified by the Administrator
incinerator, boiler, process
heater, or flare; or recovery
devices other than an absorber,
condenser, or carbon adsorber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange is encountered.
Table 3 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Operating Parameters, Operating Parameter Limits and Data Monitoring,
Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous
establish the compliance using these minimum frequencies . . .
For the operating parameter following -------------------------------------------------------------
applicable to you, as operating Data averaging
specified in table 2 parameter limit . Data measurement Data recording period for
. . compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Exit temperature of the Maximum Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
absorbing liquid. temperature. average.
2. Exit specific gravity....... Exit specific Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
gravity range. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers or process heaters
(with a design heat input capacity <44MW and vent stream is not introduced with or as the primary fuel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Firebox temperature......... Minimum firebox Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalytic incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Temperature in gas stream Minimum Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
immediately before the temperature. average.
catalyst bed.
5. Temperature difference Minimum Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
between the catalyst bed inlet temperature average.
and the catalyst bed outlet. difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon adsorbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Total regeneration stream Minimum mass flow Continuously during Every 15 minutes Total flow for
mass flow during carbon bed during carbon regeneration. during each
regeneration cycle(s). bed regeneration regeneration regeneration
cycle(s). cycle. cycle.
7. Total regeneration stream Minimum Continuously during Every 15 minutes Total flow for
volumetric flow during carbon volumetric flow regeneration. during each
bed regeneration cycle(s). during carbon regeneration regeneration
bed regeneration cycle. cycle.
cycle(s).
8. Temperature of the carbon Maximum Continuously during Every 15 minutes Average of
bed after regeneration [and temperature of regeneration and for during regeneration
within 15 minutes of the carbon bed 15 minutes after regeneration cycle.
completing any cooling after completing any cycle (including
cycle(s)]. regeneration. cooling cycle(s). any cooling
cycle).
9. Breakthrough................ As defined in As required by Sec. Each monitoring N/A.
Sec. 60.661a. 60.663a(a)(6)(iii)(B). event.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43127]]
Condensers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Exit (product side) Maximum Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
temperature. temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubbers for halogenated vent streams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. pH of scrubber effluent.... Minimum pH....... Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
average.
12. Influent liquid flow....... Minimum inlet Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
liquid flow. average.
13. Influent liquid flow rate Minimum influent Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
and gas stream flow rate. liquid-to-gas average.
ratio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Firebox temperature........ Minimum firebox Continuous............ Every 15 minutes. 3-hour block
temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control devices other than an incinerator, boiler, process heater, or flare; or recovery devices other than an
absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. As specified by the 15. As specified 15. As specified by 15. As specified 15. As specified
Administrator. by the the Administrator. by the by the
Administrator. Administrator. Administrator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart NNNa of Part 60--Calibration and Quality Control
Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And your calibration
If you monitor this Your accuracy requirements are . .
parameter . . . requirements are . . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature.............. a. 1 c. Performance
percent over the evaluation annually
normal range of and following any
temperature period of more than
measured or 2.8 24 hours throughout
degrees Celsius (5 which the
degrees temperature
Fahrenheit), exceeded the
whichever is maximum rated
greater, for non- temperature of the
cryogenic sensor, or the data
temperature ranges. recorder was off
b. 2.5 scale.
percent over the d. Visual
normal range of inspections and
temperature checks of CPMS
measured or 2.8 operation every 3
degrees Celsius (5 months, unless the
degrees CPMS has a
Fahrenheit), redundant
whichever is temperature sensor.
greater, for e. Selection of a
cryogenic representative
temperature ranges. measurement
location.
2. Flow Rate................ a. 5 d. Performance
percent over the evaluation annually
normal range of and following any
flow measured or period of more than
1.9 liters per 24 hours throughout
minute (0.5 gallons which the flow rate
per minute), exceeded the
whichever is maximum rated flow
greater, for liquid rate of the sensor,
flow rate. or the data
b. 5 recorder was off
percent over the scale.
normal range of e. Checks of all
flow measured or mechanical
280 liters per connections for
minute (10 cubic leakage monthly.
feet per minute), f. Visual
whichever is inspections and
greater, for gas checks of CPMS
flow rate. operation every 3
c. 5 months, unless the
percent over the CPMS has a
normal range redundant flow
measured for mass sensor.
flow rate. g. Selection of a
representative
measurement
location where
swirling flow or
abnormal velocity
distributions due
to upstream and
downstream
disturbances at the
point of
measurement are
minimized.
3. pH....................... a. 0.2 b. Performance
pH units. evaluation
annually. Conduct a
two-point
calibration with
one of the two
buffer solutions
having a pH within
1 of the pH of the
operating limit.
c. Visual
inspections and
checks of CPMS
operation every 3
months, unless the
CPMS has a
redundant pH
sensor.
d. Select a
measurement
location that
provides a
representative
sample of scrubber
effluent and that
ensures the fluid
is properly mixed.
[[Page 43128]]
4. Specific Gravity......... a.