[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47346-47404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18330]
[[Page 47345]]
Vol. 84
Monday,
No. 174
September 9, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose
Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47346]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415; FRL-9998-78-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU23
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Cellulose Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Cellulose Products Manufacturing to address the
results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA
is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is
proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM); to add provisions regarding periodic emissions
testing and electronic reporting; to provide more flexibility for
monitoring requirements; and to make technical and editorial changes.
While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized,
would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of
the rule.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 24,
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before October 9, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 16, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0415, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0415 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (Mail Code: E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; and email address:
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing
requirements, contact Ms. Theresa Lowe, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4786; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria
Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 564-7027; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. 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.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the
[[Page 47347]]
primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
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:
%R percent recovery
ADI Applicability Determination Index
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system
CEP Cellulose Ethers Production
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMC carboxymethyl cellulose
COS carbonyl sulfide
CS2 carbon disulfide
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
GACT generally available control technology
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEC hydroxyethyl cellulose
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model-3
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HPC hydroxypropyl cellulose
HPMC hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
ID identifier
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometers
km\2\ square kilometers
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MC methyl cellulose
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MVP Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Limits Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC source classification code
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS United States Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making under CAA
section 112(f)(2)?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
[[Page 47348]]
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
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?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. This proposed action will not
affect federal, state, local, and tribal government entities. 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) included separate source
categories for the various cellulose products manufacturing industries.
The source categories on the initial list were Cellulose Food Casings,
Rayon, Cellophane, Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and
Cellulose Ethers Production. The Cellulose Ethers Production source
category on the initial list included the hydroxyethyl cellulose,
hydroxypropyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose industries.
In developing the original proposed rule for Cellulose Products
Manufacturing, we identified another cellulose products manufacturing
industry, Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing, that was not on the initial
source category list. We added Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing to the
source category list on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63026) in accordance
with section 112(c) of the CAA. When the EPA proposed the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP on August 28, 2000 (65 FR 52166), the
Cellulose Food Casings, Rayon, Cellophane, and Cellulosic Sponge
Manufacturing source categories were combined to create a new source
category called ``Miscellaneous Viscose Processes.'' At the same time,
we combined the Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and
Cellulose Ethers Production source categories to create a newly
expanded ``Cellulose Ethers Production'' source category. On February
12, 2002 (67 FR 6521), we published an updated source category list
that included the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes (MVP) and Cellulose
Ethers Production (CEP) source categories.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Viscose Cellulose 325211, 325220,
Processes. Products 326121, 326199.
Manufacturing.
Cellulose Ethers Production... Cellulose 325199.
Products
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. 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 action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will
post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical
documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program
is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action 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. Generally, the first
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8
years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into
the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking,
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA
[[Page 47349]]
promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for
categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the 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 (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, 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. The EPA must
promulgate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately 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 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. 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).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The MVP source category includes any facility engaged in the
production of cellulose food casings, rayon, cellophane, or cellulosic
sponges, which includes the following process steps: Production of
alkali cellulose from cellulose and sodium hydroxide (NaOH); production
of sodium cellulose xanthate from alkali cellulose and carbon disulfide
(CS2) (xanthation); production of viscose from sodium
cellulose xanthate and NaOH solution; regeneration of liquid viscose
into solid cellulose; \2\ and washing of the solid cellulose product
(see 65 FR 52171-2, August 28, 2000). It should be noted that, while
the current Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP includes standards
for rayon manufacturing, all rayon plants in the United States have
shut down since promulgation of the original rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MVP operations use different methods and equipment to
complete the regeneration step. Cellulose food casing operations
extrude viscose through a die, forming a tube, while rayon
operations extrude viscose through spinnerets, forming thin strands.
Cellophane operations extrude viscose through a long slit, forming a
flat sheet, while cellulosic sponge operations feed a mixture of
viscose and Glauber's salt into a sponge mold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CEP source category includes any facility engaged in the
production of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose
(HEC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), methyl cellulose (MC), or
hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), which includes the following
process steps: Production of alkali cellulose from cellulose and NaOH;
reaction of the alkali cellulose with one or more organic chemicals to
produce a cellulose ether product; \3\ washing and purification of the
cellulose ether product; and drying of the cellulose ether product (see
65 FR 52171, August 28, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To produce CMC, HEC, HPC, MC, and HPMC, alkali cellulose is
reacted with chloroacetic acid, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide,
methyl chloride, and a combination of methyl chloride and propylene
oxide, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47350]]
This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a
technology review of the emission sources subject to the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The NESHAP requires MVP operations to
reduce the total sulfide emissions from their process vents and control
the CS2 emissions from their CS2 unloading and
storage operations. It also requires cellophane operations to reduce
the toluene emissions from their solvent coating operations and toluene
storage vessels. The NESHAP requires CEP operations to control the HAP
emissions from their process vents, wastewater, equipment leaks, and
liquid streams in open systems. The NESHAP requires both MVP and CEP
operations to comply with work practice standards for closed-vent
systems and heat exchanger systems. The NESHAP also includes various
operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the MVP and CEP source
categories.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
On June 8, 2018, the EPA sent out a survey to the cellulose
products manufacturing industry to gather information needed to conduct
the regulatory reviews required under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and
112(f)(2). The EPA divided the survey into two parts. Part 1 requested
updated inventory data for emission sources subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU, to support the residual risk assessment for the two
source categories for purposes of detailed residual risk modeling. Part
2 requested available information on process equipment, control
devices, and other pertinent information to support the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU, technology review. The response rate for the survey was
100 percent. For more details on the data collection conducted to
prepare inputs for the residual risk assessment, see the memorandum
titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart
UUUU, in the docket for this rulemaking. For more details on the data
collection conducted for the technology review, see the memorandum
titled Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
Source Category--Proposed Rule, also available in the docket.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to survey data provided by the regulated facilities,
the EPA reviewed a number of other information sources to determine if
there have been developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies by cellulose products manufacturing facilities to support
the technology review. These information sources include:
Emissions data (e.g., stack test reports and continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data) submitted with survey
responses;
Facility operating permits submitted with survey responses
and collected from state agencies;
Semiannual compliance reports submitted with survey
responses;
Other documentation submitted with survey responses (e.g.,
compliance calculations; process flow diagrams; Safety Data Sheets;
information on monitoring, wastewater, and equipment leaks);
Information on air pollution control options utilized by
the industry from the EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology/
Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Limits
Clearinghouse (RBLC);
Information on applicability and compliance issues from
the EPA's Applicability Determination Index (ADI); and
Literature review of recent information on MVP and CEP
practices, processes, and control technologies.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making under CAA section
112(f)(2)?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\4\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is
only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an
[[Page 47351]]
overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information.
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category.
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble,
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source categories under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the categories.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel
are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.A of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer
[[Page 47352]]
health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the
potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also
provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that
follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted
the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the
following documents which provide more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment
for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to
assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are
consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by
a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \6\ and described in the SAB review
report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, we used data from
Part 1 of the 2018 survey as the basis for the risk assessment for the
MVP and CEP source categories. Part 1 of the survey, which concluded in
August/September 2018, targeted facilities that are major sources of
HAP emissions and involved an update of pre-populated National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data spreadsheets (or creation of new
datasets). The NEI is a database that contains information about
sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP.
The NEI database includes estimates of actual annual air pollutant
emissions from point and volume sources; emission release
characteristic data such as emission release height, temperature,
diameter, velocity, and flow rate; and locational latitude/longitude
coordinates. We asked facilities subject to the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP to refine (or create new) inventories based on
their NEI datasets for purposes of detailed residual risk modeling.
Refinements included providing additional details for HAP emission
sources, providing more specific information on the location and
characteristics of emission points (e.g., updating emission release
coordinates and parameters), and adding or updating HAP emissions data
for each emission release point. We compiled the updated datasets for
each individual facility into MVP and CEP emissions databases to create
the MACT source category residual risk modeling files.
The actual annual emissions data in the emissions databases include
data from source tests, CEMS, material balances, emission factors,
emission models, and engineering judgment provided by sources surveyed
in Part 1 of the survey. We received a comprehensive set of emissions
estimates that enabled us to conduct risk modeling of HAP emissions for
all major source facilities in the MVP and CEP source categories.
We conducted substantial quality assurance (QA) efforts on the Part
1 data in order to create the modeling files needed for the 40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU, residual risk assessment.\7\ We first reviewed the
Part 1 databases to remove non-applicable data (e.g., data marked for
deletion by survey respondents) unless we considered them to be source-
category data, emission units identified as not subject to the
Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP, emission units identified as
shut down, records with non-HAP data, and records with zero emissions.
No duplicate emissions data were discovered during the QA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These QA efforts are discussed in an April 15, 2019
memorandum in the docket titled Preparation of the Residual Risk
Modeling Input File for Subpart UUUU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed the databases to ensure that each record contained a
facility identifier (ID), emission unit ID, and process ID. If an ID
was missing, one was assigned using information provided by industry
(e.g., from EPA databases, from emission unit description or process
description in the NEI). In some cases, emission unit IDs and process
IDs were revised for consistency. Looking across the updated MVP and
CEP inventories, we also reviewed whether there may be any referential
integrity issues associated with these IDs (e.g., having the same
emission unit ID associated with multiple emission unit descriptions or
having the same process ID associated with multiple process
descriptions or multiple source classification codes (SCCs)). In those
cases, we revised the appropriate ID to address the issue.
In addition, each record was checked to ensure it was labeled with
a regulatory code, SCC, and emission process group. No regulatory codes
or SCCs were found missing. The SCCs for some records were revised for
consistency. Where information on emission process group was missing,
the emission process group was determined based on information from
SCCs, comments from survey respondents, etc. Next, the SCCs and
emission process groups were compared and reviewed for consistency with
each other; no issues were found.
We reviewed the pollutant codes in the source category risk
modeling files to ensure the codes and descriptions matched the latest
code lookup table used by the EPA for risk modeling files; the review
found the records to be consistent.
We speciated data for chromium and mercury using default speciation
criteria for those pollutants for the specific SCC. We speciated
chromium emissions as hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) and trivalent
chromium (chromium III). We speciated mercury emissions as particulate
divalent mercury, gaseous divalent mercury, and gaseous elemental
mercury. We were unable to speciate data for glycol ether for one
facility because no information on the glycol ether compound(s) emitted
was available from the facility in their Part 1 survey response or
operating permit. For unspeciated emission inventories, it is the EPA's
risk assessment policy to use the most potent noncancer health
benchmark as the default emission compound; in this case, ethylene
glycol methyl ether would be modeled.
We reviewed the emissions data by calculating the percent of
facilities reporting each HAP, comparing emissions of a facility to
category average emissions, calculating standard deviations, and
identifying outliers. No pollutants in the MVP and CEP modeling files
were found above or below the range for either category.
We reviewed the MVP and CEP risk modeling files to ensure that each
record in these files contained an emission release point ID. If an ID
was missing, one was assigned using information provided by industry
(e.g., from the emission unit ID or process ID). In some cases,
emission release point IDs were revised for consistency. Looking across
the updated MVP and CEP inventories, we also determined whether there
may be any referential integrity issues associated with the emission
release information. For each emission release point, each record
[[Page 47353]]
should have one set of coordinates (latitude and longitude) and one set
of stack or fugitive parameters. All records were reviewed for
consistency with respect to the emission release point. Where any such
issues were identified, we revised the emission release point ID,
stack/fugitive parameters, and/or coordinates to address the issue.
We reviewed emission points labeled as stacks to ensure no fugitive
parameters were identified; any fugitive parameter values (usually
zeroes) entered for these records were deleted. We reviewed stack
parameters to ensure all were populated with reasonable values and made
changes where necessary. We checked stack height data to ensure that
they were greater than stack diameter. We checked exit gas flow rate
data to determine whether they met the EPA's criteria that the flow
rate must be within 10 percent of the calculated value (assuming a
cylindrical stack). Where exit gas flow rate values did not meet the
10-percent criteria, we conducted a review to determine the source of
the discrepancy (e.g., the reported stack parameter was in the wrong
units). We also checked for missing stack parameters and populated the
missing data using values from other records for the same emission
release point; if values from other records were not available, we
calculated the missing value based on other related parameters for the
same emission release point (e.g., calculated exit gas velocity using
available data for stack diameter and exit gas flow rate).
We checked fugitive parameters to ensure there was an associated
length, width, and angle, and that no stack parameters for fugitive
sources were erroneously populated, other than the required national
defaults.
We checked coordinate values (latitude and longitude) to determine
if there were any missing values and to ensure only one set of
coordinates appeared for each emission release point. We populated the
missing data using values from other records for the same emission
release point, where possible. We revised coordinate values where
necessary to ensure coordinates were consistent for the same emission
point. We also checked coordinate values to ensure that all coordinates
were on the facility property, by analyzing the distance between
coordinates at individual facilities. Only one emission point, a
wastewater treatment system emission unit, was found to be an outlier,
and the coordinates of this emission point were checked and were found
to lie on wastewater tanks near the boundary of the property.
We checked the source category risk modeling files for missing
control measure information and filled gaps using control measure
comments provided by respondents in their Part 1 survey responses or
process diagrams provided by respondents in their Part 2 survey
responses.
The emissions inventory for MVP sources identifies no emissions of
PB-HAP. The emissions inventory for CEP sources identifies emissions of
the following PB-HAP: Cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead
compounds, and mercury compounds. Risk-based screening levels are
available for Tier 1 screening for all of the above PB-HAP except lead
compounds, which are compared to the level of the current National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.
Consistent with the EPA's standard practice in conducting risk
assessments for source categories, we conducted a two-step process to
determine: (1) Whether PB-HAP are being emitted; and (2) whether they
are being released above screening levels. If these releases are
significantly above the screening levels and the EPA has detailed
information on the releases and the site, a complete multipathway
analysis of the site is conducted to estimate pathway risks for the
source category.
We considered actual emissions of the ecological HAP emitted from
the CEP source category in the ecological HAP analysis. In addition to
the PB-HAP emitted from the CEP source category, we considered
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) for ecological HAP
modeling. The CEP source category, however, does not emit HF. Further
information about the multipathway analysis performed for this category
follows in section IV.A.2.c of this preamble.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
Actual emissions are sometimes less than allowable emissions due to
a compliance margin, a more stringent state or local rule, or over-
control due to the use of control technologies, equipment, or work
practices that are significantly better than that required to meet 40
CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, emission limits. Consequently, as part of
the Part 1 survey instructions, the EPA requested that facilities
provide MACT-allowable emissions estimates.
Allowable emissions estimates were available for four of the five
MVP facilities. Two MVP facilities provided their allowable emissions
in their Part 1 survey spreadsheet. Two other MVP facilities provided
their allowable emissions separately, in their Part 1 survey response
letter. The latter two facilities stated that the stack parameters
would be expected to be different if they were to emit at the allowable
emissions levels because additional ductwork and ductwork modifications
would be expected in order to route additional fumes to their
biofilters if they increased capacity. While we do not intend MACT-
allowable emissions in this risk modeling effort to represent the
maximum potential-to-emit emission rate, we conservatively used this
information for modeling because it was the only readily available
information. We created new records in the MVP risk modeling file to
include just these allowable emissions data and their associated stack
parameters. To avoid any referential integrity issues, we assigned a
different emission release point ID to these allowable emissions
records.
The remaining MVP facility did not provide allowable emissions data
in their survey spreadsheet. However, this facility is the only one in
its subcategory, so the original MACT for the subcategory was based on
their level of control. Consequently, we assumed that allowable
emissions were equal to the reported actual emissions. So, for this
facility, the allowable multiplier is 1.
There were some gaps in the allowable emissions estimates provided
by the MVP facilities. Allowable emissions for carbonyl sulfide (COS)
were not available for one MVP facility
[[Page 47354]]
for one of their processes because they report it as part of the
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) limit in their title V permit. We
created a new record in the MVP risk modeling file that calculated the
COS allowable emissions for this process using the same multiplier as
H2S (6.8). Allowable emissions for CS2 were also
not available for a second MVP facility for some of their processes. We
calculated the allowable emissions for this facility using the median
of the multipliers for those processes at the facility that had
allowable emissions estimates. Using this approach, we estimated the
median allowable multiplier for CS2 for this facility to be
approximately 2.4.
Allowable emissions estimates were available for 48 percent of the
records in the CEP risk modeling file, and the remaining 52 percent of
records had no allowable emissions estimates. Of that 52 percent of
records, 33 percent were uncontrolled sources of organic HAP, and 19
percent were controlled sources of organic HAP.
For uncontrolled CEP sources without allowable emissions data
(e.g., fugitive emissions), we assumed that allowable emissions were
equal to their reported actual emissions, since there is no additional
control beyond current emissions. For controlled CEP sources without
allowable emissions data, we reviewed Part 2 survey data on emission
controls for these sources and found that all of these sources were
already meeting the 99-percent control required under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU, and based on the data reported, there is little if any
additional control beyond current emissions. Consequently, allowable
emissions are equal to actuals for controlled CEP sources.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\8\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\9\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \10\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\10\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have
undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may
use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other
values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values
used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \11\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual
[[Page 47355]]
cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at
each census block by the number of people residing in that block,
summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this
result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\12\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule and in Appendix 5 of both reports: Technical Support Document for
Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in
RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\13\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and in
Appendix 5 of the reports: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment, both are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \14\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs repr esent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\15\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain
[[Page 47356]]
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the
airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams
per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or
an impaired ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\15\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \16\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
As part of the Part 1 survey instructions, the EPA requested that
facilities provide acute emissions estimates. For the MVP source
category, acute emissions estimates were available for four of the five
facilities. One of the four facilities was missing an acute emission
estimate for COS for one process, but we were able to calculate an
estimate for COS by applying the same acute multiplier for
CS2 for the same process at this facility. We developed
separate acute multipliers for MVP process operations and MVP storage
tanks to estimate acute emissions for the fifth facility. We estimated
the average acute multipliers for MVP process operations and MVP
storage tanks to be approximately 1.9 and 1.1, respectively.
For the CEP source category, acute emissions estimates were
available for 38 percent of the records in the CEP risk modeling file.
The remaining 62 percent of records had no acute emissions estimates.
For CEP sources without acute emissions data, we reviewed permits and
extracted maximum hourly rate data if available, and assumed the acute
multiplier would be 10 if no data were available.
A further discussion of why these factors were chosen can be found
in the memorandum, Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File
for Subpart UUUU, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. This
was the case for the CEP source category. In cases where an acute HQ
from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the site-specific
data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site location. This was
required for the MVP source category, in which the data refinements
employed consisted of ensuring that the locations where the maximum HQ
occurred were off facility property and where the public could
potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule which is available in the docket for this source
category.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any
PB-HAP or lead compounds. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions,
no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this
source category.
For the CEP source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of
cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead compounds, and mercury
compounds, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except
for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP
consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment,
we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions
of PB-HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk
through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate
emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission
rates for several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end
screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the
EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological
Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold
emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic
matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second
[[Page 47357]]
screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment.
The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher
and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener
scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption of fish \17\)
and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of
locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios
\18\). If PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening
value greater than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks
below a level of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility
exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a
Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\18\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\19\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment for CEP, see
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and HF.
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the
[[Page 47358]]
Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the MVP and CEP source categories
emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the CEP source category, we
identified emissions of cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead
compounds, mercury compounds, and HCl. Because one or more of the
environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the
source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. For
the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any of the
eight environmental HAP included in the screen. Because we did not
identify environmental HAP emissions from the MVP source category, no
further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted for that
category.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and square kilometers
(km\2\); the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that
exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-
weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by
dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km
modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For
further information on the environmental screening assessment approach,
see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers
Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records
of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described
in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source
category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining
records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the
modeled
[[Page 47359]]
source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to
determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be
attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule and the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the
methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all
facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution
to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule and the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which are
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets
Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. Some of the emission estimates considered
in this analysis are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\20\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as
[[Page 47360]]
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be
greater.\21\ Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values
represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-
protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to
be ``without appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an
uncertainty factor (UF) approach,\22\ which considers uncertainty,
variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to
derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against
appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\21\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\22\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by the CEP source category
are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants
cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could
result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to
alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity
with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that
value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value
is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable
risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS
assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and
hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been
performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP
not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively
and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk
management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions
achieved by various control options. For the MVP source category, we
have identified appropriate human health effect dose-response values
for all pollutants.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum
exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case
air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
[[Page 47361]]
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. MVP Source Category
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results of the MVP source category. The results of the
chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based
on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed
by the source category was estimated to be less than 1-in-1 million.
The risk driver is acetaldehyde emissions from viscose process
equipment. The total estimated cancer incidence from MVP emission
sources based on actual and allowable emission levels is 0.000006
excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 167,000 years.
Emissions of acetaldehyde contributed 100 percent to this cancer
incidence. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, no people were
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the MVP source
category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be
less than 1. Based upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory
risks were driven by CS2 emissions from viscose process
equipment.
Table 2--MVP Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Maximum Maximum
Number of individual increased Estimated annual chronic refined acute
Risk assessment facilities cancer risk risk of cancer incidence noncancer noncancer HQ
(in 1 million) cancer >=1- (cases per year) TOSHI \3\ \4\
\2\ in-1 million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...................................... 5 <1 0 0.000006 0.05 0.4
Facility-Wide........................................ 5 1 0 0.00006 0.05 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47362]]
Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...................................... 5 <1 0 0.000006 0.05 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual, allowable, and facility-wide emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category and facility-wide.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MVP source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
available acute dose-response value. The HQ of 0.4 is based upon an acute ERPG-1.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ value for the MVP source category
was less than 1 from CS2 emissions (based on the acute (1-
hour) ERPG-1 for CS2). It is also important to note that the
highest HQ is based on hourly emissions multiplier for each emission
process group ranging from 1 to 37 times the annual emissions rate.
Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The five facilities modeled in the MVP source category did not
report any emissions of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic,
dioxin/furans, and POM compounds) or any noncarcinogenic PB-HAP
(cadmium and mercury). Since, there are no PB-HAP or lead compounds
identified in the emissions inventory for this source category, no
further assessment of multipathway risk was conducted.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The five facilities modeled in the MVP source category did not
report any emissions of lead compounds, PB-HAP, or any acid gases (HCl
or HF). Since there are no ecological HAP identified in the emissions
inventory for this source category, no further assessment of ecological
risk was conducted.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that
none of the five facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk
greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 2). The maximum facility-
wide cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, driven by formaldehyde, cadmium
compounds, and nickel compounds from a non-category fugitive area
source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is
0.00006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 16,700
years, with zero people estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-
in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is
estimated to be less than 1, driven by source category emissions of
CS2 from viscose process equipment.
2. CEP Source Category
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results of the CEP source category. The results of the
chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based
on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed
by the source category was estimated to be 80-in-1 million. The risk
driver is from emissions of ethylene oxide from cellulose ether process
equipment used to produce hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC). The total
estimated cancer incidence from CEP emission sources based on actual
and allowable emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or
one case in every 100 years. Emissions of ethylene oxide contributed 99
percent to this cancer incidence based upon actual emissions. Based
upon actual or allowable emissions, 105,000 people were exposed to
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum
chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on
actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than 1. Based
upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by
chlorine emissions from cellulose ether process equipment.
Table 3--CEP Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Estimated Maximum Maximum
Number of individual increased annual cancer chronic screening
Risk assessment facilities cancer risk risk of incidence noncancer acute
(in 1 million) cancer >=1-in- (cases per TOSHI \3\ noncancer HQ
1 million year) \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................................... 3 80 105,000 0.01 0.06 0.1
Facility-Wide........................................... 3 \2\ 500 570,000 0.04 \5\ 4 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47363]]
Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................................... 3 80 112,000 0.01 0.2 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual, allowable, and whole facility emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to ethylene oxide emissions from outside of the source category identified as releases from
holding ponds, storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the CEP source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
available acute dose-response value.
\5\ Maximum TOSHI from whole facility are from chlorine emissions from non-category sources (classified as other). The target organ with the highest
TOSHI is the respiratory system.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ value for the source category was
less than 1 from methanol emissions from cellulose ether process
equipment (based on the acute (1-hour) REL for methanol). It is also
important to note that the highest HQ is based on an hourly emissions
multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs are not
calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
One facility within the CEP source category reported emissions of
multipathway pollutants of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB-HAP
(arsenic), and noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury). Results of
the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB-HAP emissions
(based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from the facility
exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic
compounds) by a factor of 2 and for the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium
and mercury) was equal to the Tier 1 screening value of 1. Based on
this Tier 1 screening assessment for carcinogens, the arsenic, cadmium,
and mercury emission rates for the single facility were below our level
of concern. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest annual
average lead concentration of 0.00001 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below the
NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of
concern due to lead.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the CEP source category.
The three facilities modeled in the source category reported emissions
of lead compounds and the above PB-HAP, as well as an acid gas (HCl).
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP, we did not find any
exceedances of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did
not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the
average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the average
concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did
not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual
modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the
modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all
facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening
analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that
all three facilities modeled have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk
greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 3). The maximum facility-
wide cancer risk is 500-in-1 million, mainly driven by ethylene oxide
from sources outside the source category, including holding ponds,
storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases. The
next highest cancer risk was 80-in-1 million, based on whole facility
emissions of ethylene oxide. The total estimated cancer incidence from
the whole facility is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 25 years, with 570,000 people estimated to have cancer risks
greater than 1-in-1 million and 2,000 people with risks greater than
100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is
estimated to be equal to 4, driven by emissions of chlorine from non-
category sources.
3. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the MVP and CEP source categories, we
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and
within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MVP and
CEP source categories across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.
For the MVP source category demographic analysis, the results for
various demographic groups are based on the estimated risk from actual
emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the
facilities. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to
emissions from MVP facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the MVP demographic
analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities, available in the docket for
this action.
The results of the CEP demographic analysis are summarized in Table
4 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on
the
[[Page 47364]]
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the CEP facilities.
Table 4--CEP Demographic Risk Analysis Results
[CEP Source Category Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
with cancer Population
risk greater with hazard
than or equal index greater
to 1-in-1 than 1
million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 317,746,049 104,572 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 51 0
Minority........................................................ 38 49 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................ 12 37 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 0.3 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 18 7 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 14 12 0
Above Poverty Level............................................. 86 88 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 14 16 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 86 84 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the CEP source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
104,572 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and
approximately zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The percentages of the at-risk population in three demographic groups
(African American, above poverty level, and over 25 without highs
school diploma) are greater than their respective nationwide
percentages. The methodology and the results of the CEP demographic
analysis are presented in the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, available in the docket for
this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, 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 limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions from the MVP and CEP source categories. In
determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as
described above. The results for the MVP and CEP source categories
indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to
the individual most exposed are below the presumptive limit of
acceptability of 100-in-1 million.
The results for the MVP source category indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most
exposed are less than 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit
of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The MVP source category also has
chronic noncancer inhalation exposures to HAP with health benchmarks
with TOSHI values less than 1 (0.05), 20 times below an exposure that
the EPA has determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health
effects also are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures
resulting in an HQ greater than 1 (0.4) based upon the 1-hour REL.
The results for the CEP source category indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most
exposed are less or equal to 80-in-1 million, below the presumptive
limit of acceptability of
[[Page 47365]]
100-in-1 million. EPA estimates emissions from the 3 facilities in the
source category would result in a cancer incidence of 0.01 excess
cancer cases per year, or one case every 100 years based upon actual
emissions from the source category. This incidence rate is solely from
1 facility emitting ethylene oxide. We estimate 105,000 individuals are
exposed to an inhalation cancer risk equal to or greater than 1-in-1
million from this one facility. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated
with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.06 based
on actual emissions, 16 times below an exposure that the EPA has
determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also
are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in
an HQ greater than 1 (0.1) based upon the 1-hour REL.
Multipathway screen values for the CEP source category are below a
level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PB-HAP as
well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risk
due to ingestion exposures estimated using Tier 1 health-protective
risk screening assumptions are below 2-in-1 million for cancer and
equal to 1 based upon Tier 1 noncancer screen values for mercury.
Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the
risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for
the CEP and MVP source categories are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
The inhalation cancer risk from the MVP source category is less
than 1-in-1 million and the chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation
exposures is less than 1. Additionally, the results of the MVP acute
screening analysis showed that risks were below a level of concern.
Because we are proposing that risks from the MVP source category are
acceptable and below the thresholds of concern, we are proposing that
the current MACT standards applicable to the MVP source category
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Although we are proposing that the risks from the three modeled
facilities within the CEP source category are acceptable, the MIR for
actual and allowable emissions are 80-in-1 million caused by ethylene
oxide emissions from the HEC process. We considered whether the MACT
standards applicable to these emission points in particular, as well as
all the current MACT standards applicable to this source category,
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As directed
by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the
current emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated
the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other
measures (including those considered under the technology review) that
could be applied to the CEP source category to further reduce the risks
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk
assessment.
The HEC production process utilizes purified wood pulp or cotton
linters to produce alkali cellulose by adding a caustic solution. The
alkali cellulose is then reacted with ethylene oxide to produce HEC,
which is a thickening agent used in cosmetics, cleaning solutions, and
other household products. This process utilizes extended cook-out
procedures to reduce the amount of ethylene oxide not consumed during
the HEC reaction in conjunction with an add-on control device. This
process is subject to standard 3 in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part
63--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards, which requires a 99-
percent reduction in HAP emissions.
As discussed in section IV.C below and in the memo titled
Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--
Proposed Rule in the docket for this rulemaking, we did not identify
any developments in processes, practices, or controls for the CEP
source category during our analysis for this proposal. CEP facilities
use scrubbers to control emissions of ethylene oxide, as well as other
HAP, and these devices are capable of achieving high levels of emission
reductions. We did not identify additional technologies capable of
further reducing emissions, or improvements to existing technologies
that would result in further reduction of emissions. Given that we did
not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies and the acceptable risks remaining after implementation of
the NESHAP, we are proposing that the existing standards for the CEP
source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, and revision of the standards is not required.
Lastly, regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide
(described above), which are due primarily to emission sources that are
not part of the CEP source category, we intend to evaluate these
facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address
them in a separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the
EPA is addressing ethylene oxide in response to the results of the
latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018,
which identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas
across the country. (NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics
screening tool, designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal
air agencies identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for
further examination.) The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide
significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some
census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number
of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk
value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA will work with industry
and state, local, and tribal air agencies as the EPA takes a two-
pronged approach to address ethylene oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing
and, as appropriate, revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit
ethylene oxide--starting with air toxics emissions standards for
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities and commercial
sterilizers; and (2) conducting site-specific risk assessments and, as
necessary, implementing emission control strategies for targeted high-
risk facilities. The EPA will post updates on its work to address
ethylene oxide on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any
environmental HAP. Because we did not identify any environmental HAP
emissions, we expect no adverse environmental effects and are proposing
that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
For the CEP source category, our analyses showed no exceedances of
ecological benchmarks and, therefore, we do not expect there to be an
adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category. We are proposing that it is not necessary to set a
more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for control of HAP emissions from CEP and MVP
facilities.
[[Page 47366]]
In conducting the technology review, we reviewed sources of information
on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not
considered during the development of the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as looked for information on improvements
in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred
since the development of the NESHAP. The review included reviewing the
industry responses to Part 2 of the sector survey, a search of the RBLC
database and the EPA's ADI, reviews of air permits, and a review of
relevant literature. After reviewing the information from the
aforementioned sources, we did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce HAP emissions
from the CEP and MVP source categories. Therefore, we are proposing
that revisions to the NESHAP are not necessary based on our review
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
While these searches did not result in a finding of any new
technologies, the results of the ADI search suggest that the EPA could
add biofilter effluent conductivity operating limits and parameter
monitoring as an alternative to biofilter pH operating limits and
monitoring. This is discussed in section IV.D below. Additional details
of our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled
Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes, including electronic
submittal of notifications, compliance reports, and performance test
reports; addition of periodic emissions testing requirements and
incorporation by reference (IBR) of three test methods (listed in
section IV.D.5 below); and various technical and editorial changes. Our
analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed
below.
1. 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 exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, 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.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.5515 and Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63
(Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU). Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply
at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
However, the EPA is proposing alternative operating limits for periods
of startup and shutdown for thermal oxidizers and scrubbers to address
issues with parameter monitoring during these periods.
As discussed in the memorandum titled Summary of the Startup and
Shutdown Data for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, we requested data
regarding periods of startup and shutdown as part of the 2018 survey.
Facilities did not indicate difficulty meeting the emission standards
as a result of startup or shutdown events. However, facilities did
indicate difficulty meeting thermal oxidizer and scrubber operating
parameters during these periods. This is not unexpected because these
periods reflect non-steady state operations and production. For sources
equipped with thermal oxidizers, survey responses indicated that they
could not meet the setpoint temperature during periods of startup. This
is likely due to a temperature drop when the HAP-laden air stream is
initially added to the oxidizer. Survey responses indicated that, for
sources equipped with scrubbers (wet, water, and caustic), pressure
drop, liquid-to-gas ratios, and scrubber liquid flow rate parameter
limits could not be met during startup and shutdown. This is not
unexpected since pluggage can occur during non-stable conditions,
limiting the liquid flow rate and subsequently reducing the pressure
drop across the scrubber due to the lack of liquid flow. Consequently,
the EPA is proposing the following alternative operating parameter
options to demonstrate continuous compliance and ensure proper control
device operations during periods of startup and shutdown:
Wet or caustic scrubber: As an alternative to pressure
drop, liquid flow rate, or liquid-to-gas ratio, confirm that the
scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and
continue operation until emission unit shutdown is complete.
Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on
equipment design, manufacturer's recommendations, or other site-
specific operating values established for normal operating periods. Do
not include these parameters when determining the daily average.
Thermal oxidizer: As an alternative to the minimum firebox
temperature, confirm that the oxidizer is operating properly prior to
emission unit startup (e.g., firebox temperature has reached the
setpoint temperature established in the most recent stack test). Do not
include these parameters when determining the daily average.
The survey responses for other control devices did not indicate any
issues meeting operating parameters during periods of startup and
shutdown. One additional survey response requested the addition of a
shutdown work practice for process lines and equipment venting. This
response suggested that, in the event of a shutdown, it would be
appropriate to purge the process gas and/or liquid to an emission
control device, recovery device, or return to the process.
Additionally, the response suggested that gas streams may be emitted if
they contain less than 50 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or
the lower explosive limit is less than 10 percent. The Agency is
requesting comment to determine if this
[[Page 47367]]
would be an appropriate work practice. Emissions from venting due to
shutdown should be accounted for in the compliance demonstration in the
semiannual compliance report.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). 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 Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will
result in a violation of the standard for this source category. For
example, facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control
equipment indicated in the 2018 survey that interlocks would shut down
the process if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and facilities may
also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat the emissions.
The MACT standards are based on a percent reduction of HAP over a 6-
month rolling period per group of equipment. Therefore, the malfunction
of a singular piece of equipment in a single month over this period is
unlikely to result in an exceedance of the standard. The EPA is
soliciting information on the type of events that constitute a
malfunction event, and best practices and best level of emission
control during malfunction events. The EPA is also soliciting
information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In
addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP
emissions during malfunction events for the MVP and CEP source
categories, including the cause of malfunctions, the frequency of
malfunctions, the duration of malfunctions, and the estimate of HAP
emitted during each malfunction.
In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable
[[Page 47368]]
and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5515 that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5515 does not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no''
in column 4. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5515.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to
revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and
changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language of
40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods
of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to
apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements.
The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement
at 40 CFR 63.5535. The performance testing requirements we are
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing
to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add to the rule at Table 9 that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through
[[Page 47369]]
(iv) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead
proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to Table 9. When a source
is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and
end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard.
Thus, the EPA is proposing to add language to Table 9 requiring that
sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that
differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must
report the date, time, and duration of such periods. The EPA is also
proposing that sources would be required to record information
supporting the operating parameter alternatives, including (1) an
indication that thermal oxidizers reach set point temperature prior to
emission unit startup, and (2) an indication that scrubbers are
properly operating prior to emission unit startup. The proposed records
are required to demonstrate that alternative operating parameter limits
have been met during periods of startup and shutdown.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such
requirements to Table 9. The regulatory text we are proposing to add
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General
Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this
requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is
requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the
failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to
add to Table 9 a requirement that sources keep records that include a
list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize
emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM
plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable
under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions
and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to Table
9.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv), which includes a ``no'' in column 4. When applicable,
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or
records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA
is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no
longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the periodic reporting requirements
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.5580 and Table 8. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
[[Page 47370]]
consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. 5-Year Periodic Emissions Testing
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the testing and
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU and is
proposing the following change. The EPA is proposing to require
facilities that use non-recovery control devices to conduct periodic
air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic
performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date
of the revised standards and thereafter no longer than 5 years
following the previous test. Requiring periodic performance tests would
serve as a check on the accuracy of facilities' mass balance
calculations and on the efficiency of the control devices used to
achieve compliance with the standards. Periodic performance tests would
ensure that control devices are properly maintained over time, thereby
reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes. We specifically
request comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements.
3. Electronic Reporting
Through this action, we are proposing that owners and operators of
cellulose products manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of
required initial notifications, notifications of compliance status,
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 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, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415. The proposed 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 \24\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For initial notifications and notifications of compliance status,
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators submit
notifications as PDFs to CEDRI. For semiannual reports, the proposed
rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\25\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Subpart_UUUU_Semiannual_Report.xlsx, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial notifications, notifications of compliance status,
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual reports are required to be submitted according to the
deadlines specified in 40 CFR 63.5580. Additionally, the EPA has
identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting
extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to
accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the
discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as
possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect
owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot
successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons
outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be
warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which 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 an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580.
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the
facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\27\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\28\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Biofilter Effluent Conductivity
On November 17, 2006, Viskase Companies, Inc., a company subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, which manufactures cellulose food
casings, submitted a request to the EPA to monitor biofilter effluent
conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH for the biofilter control
devices at their facilities in Osceola, Arkansas, and Loudon,
Tennessee. The request stated that pH is in a range such that effluent
conductivity would provide a more accurate operating limit:
[[Page 47371]]
For strong acids and bases, pH values are not very meaningful
indicators of the concentration. The measurement uncertainty is
large because pH is a logarithmic scale. Conductivity measurements
are more suitable than pH measurements for producing accurate and
reproducible estimates of the concentrations of free acids and bases
because the relationship between conductivity and concentration is
almost linear over a range of concentrations.
Based on the information provided by Viskase, the EPA conditionally
approved the monitoring request to establish and monitor an effluent
conductivity operating limit for the biofilter units and stated that
the effluent conductivity operating limit must be based on a
performance test and can be supplemented by engineering assessments
and/or manufacturer's recommendations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Technology Review for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing Source Category--Proposed Rule, Appendix E, available
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to granting the alternative monitoring request per 40
CFR 63.8(f), the EPA is also proposing an amendment to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU, to add biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative
parameter to pH. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to revise the
operating limits table (Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add
biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of biofilter operating
limits, revise the performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535
to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of parameters for
which operating limits must be established during the compliance
demonstration, and revise the continuous compliance with operating
limits table (Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add biofilter
effluent conductivity to the list of parameters to monitor to
demonstrate continuous compliance.
5. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following documents into 40 CFR 63.14:
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses--Part
10, was previously approved for incorporation by reference for Table 4
to Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart
UUUU of Part 63.
ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/
and at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
6. Technical and Editorial Changes
The following lists additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
Revise the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5505 to clarify that
CS2 storage tanks part of a submerged unloading and storage operation
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, is not subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb. These types of tanks are not the type of storage
vessels in terms of their physical siting and operational design that
were intended to be regulated under NSPS Kb, even when these tanks meet
the vapor pressure and designed capacity under the rule. These tanks
are completely submerged in a common water bath and have no air space
within the tanks due to the continuous water layer above the CS2 layer,
therefore, the tanks do not have direct CS2 gaseous emissions.
Revise the performance test requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535
to specify the conditions for conducting performance tests;
Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to correct an error in the reference to a test
method appendix;
Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add IBR for ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved
2010), ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), and ASTM D6348-12e1;
Revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5580 and
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements tables (Tables 8 and 9 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to include the requirements to record and
report information on failures to meet the applicable standard and the
corrective actions taken; and
Revise the General Provisions applicability table (Table
10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to align with those sections of the
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
For the proposed rule revisions related to the removal of the
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods
and the additional electronic reporting requirements, the EPA is
proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the
amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
September 9, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart,
including the amendments being proposed unless indicated specifically
otherwise, immediately upon startup. All affected existing facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU, until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance
status, performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the
new template be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to
change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan.
Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different
time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and
[[Page 47372]]
understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to
ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and
shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments;
adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate
revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
date.
Additionally, we are also proposing new requirements to conduct
periodic performance testing every 5 years. Establishing a compliance
date earlier than 3 years for the first periodic performance test can
cause scheduling issues as affected sources compete for a limited
number of testing contractors. Considering these scheduling issues, we
are proposing that each existing affected source, and each new and
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after August 28, 2000, and on or before September 9,
2019 and uses a non-recovery control device to comply with the
standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or
before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no
later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance
test. For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019 and uses a non-
recovery control device to comply with the standards, we are proposing
that owners and operators must conduct the first periodic performance
test no later than 60 months following the initial performance test
required by 40 CFR 63.5535 and conduct subsequent periodic performance
tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous
performance test.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are currently eight facilities operating in the United States
that conduct MVP and CEP operations that are subject to the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU
affected source for the MVP source category is each cellulose food
casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operation, as defined
in 40 CFR 63.5610. The affected source for the CEP source category is
each cellulose ether operation, as defined in 40 CFR 63.5610.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the MVP and CEP
facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 4,300 tpy.
Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do
not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of the
proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed
requirements, including the removal of the SSM exemption and addition
of periodic emissions testing, may reduce emissions by ensuring proper
operation of control devices.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The eight facilities that would be subject to the proposed
amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping
and reporting requirements and would incur periodic emissions testing
costs for add-on control devices. The nationwide costs associated with
the proposed periodic testing requirements are estimated to be $490,000
(2018$) over the 5 years following promulgation of the amendments. For
further information on the requirement being proposed, see section
IV.D.2 of this preamble. For further information on the costs
associated with the proposed requirements, see the memorandum, Costs
and Environmental Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing Industry--Proposed Rule, and the document,
Supporting Statement for the NESHAP for Cellulose Products
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU), which are both available
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated
cost impacts.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a proposed rule. Based on the costs associated
with the periodic testing requirements, no significant economic impacts
from the proposed amendments are anticipated.
E. What are the benefits?
Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if
finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule.
Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that
they apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed amendments
requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance
test results, and semiannual reports will increase the usefulness of
the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment,
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more information.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-
air-pollution/
[[Page 47373]]
cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. The data
files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point
for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
VIII. 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 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed 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 1974.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are essential in
determining compliance and mandatory for all operators subject to
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UUUU, in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and
SSM plan requirements, adding periodic emissions testing, providing
biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to monitoring pH, and
requiring electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports,
and performance test reports.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include facilities
subject to the NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU).
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU).
Estimated number of respondents: Eight.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include initial notifications, reports of
periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for this information collection, averaged over the first 3 years
of this ICR, is estimated to total 7,256 labor hours (per year). Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $954,000 per year, including $834,000 per
year in labor costs and $120,000 per year in annualized capital or
operation and maintenance costs.
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.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 9, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. No
small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule. As such,
this action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal
[[Page 47374]]
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No
tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the
following risk reports titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment
for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in
the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,'' for the measurement of toluene and
total organic HAP. This method employs a direct interface gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify the 36
volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of these compounds) listed on
the ASTM website. This ASTM 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. This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because
their atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified
as a total VOC method.
The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds
in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.''
This method covers the identification and simultaneous measurement of
purgeable volatile organic compounds. It has been validated for treated
drinking water, wastewater, and groundwater. ASTM D5790-95 is
acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 624 and for the analysis of
total organic HAP in wastewater samples. For wastewater analyses, this
ASTM method should be used with the sampling procedures of EPA Method
25D or an equivalent method in order to be a complete alternative. The
ASTM standard is validated for all of the 21 volatile organic HAP
(including toluene) targeted by EPA Method 624, but it is also
validated for an additional 14 HAP not targeted by the EPA method.
The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable alternative to using EPA Method
320 with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. This test method provides the volume
concentration of detected analytes. Converting the volume concentration
to a mass emission rate using a particular compound's molecular weight,
and the effluent volumetric flow rate, temperature, and pressure is
useful for determining the impact of that compound to the atmosphere.
When using ASTM D6348-12e, the following conditions must be met: (1)
The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D
6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-
03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%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 greater
than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If
the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the
test data are 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 the Stack))/(%R) x 100.
The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
While the EPA has identified another 14 voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule,
we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of
these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and
policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, in the docket for this
proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the 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.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.3
of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities and Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, which are located in the public
docket for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference,
[[Page 47375]]
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(72), (85), (89),
and (91) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(72) ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to
subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
(85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1571(a) and Table 4 to subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
(89) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.5799 and 63.5850.
* * * * *
(91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, and appendix A
to this part: Method 325B.
* * * * *
Subpart UUUU--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.5505 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5505 What emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(f) Carbon disulfide storage tanks part of a submerged unloading
and storage operation subject to this part are not subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
July 23, 1984).
0
4. Section 63.5515 is amended by revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b)
introductory text, adding and reserving paragraph (b)(2), and revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5515 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each such
source you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this
subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you
must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and
work practice standards in this subpart at all times.
(b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] for each such source, and after September
9, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you must always
operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution
control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions
does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
* * * * *
(c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must
maintain a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan
according the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or
reconstruction source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after September 9, 2019.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.5535 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing and
reserving paragraph (c), revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(7)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5535 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) You must conduct each performance test for continuous process
vents and combinations of batch and continuous process vents based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested,
according to the specific conditions in Table 4 to this Subpart UUUU.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such
records as
[[Page 47376]]
may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Viscose process affected sources that must use non-recovery
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery
control devices and incorporate this information in their material
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
Sec. 63.5541.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Cellulose ether affected sources that must use non-recovery
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery
control devices and incorporate this information in their material
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
Sec. 63.5541.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(7) For biofilters, record the pressure drop across the biofilter
beds, inlet gas temperature, and effluent pH or conductivity averaged
over the same time period as the compliance demonstration while the
vent stream is routed and constituted normally. Locate the pressure,
temperature, and pH or conductivity sensors in positions that provide
representative measurement of these parameters. Ensure the sample is
properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5541 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5541 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control
device to comply with Sec. 63.5515 constructed or reconstructed before
September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test must be performed by
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
(b) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control
device to comply with Sec. 63.5515 that commences construction or
reconstruction after September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test
must be performed no later than 60 months after the initial performance
test required by Sec. 63.5535, and subsequent tests no later than 60
months thereafter.
0
7. Section 63.5545 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5545 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(3) and (4)(ii), and
63.5515(b), and 63.5580(c)(6);
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8, Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix F, and according to the applicable performance
specification listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.5555 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5555 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?
* * * * *
(d) Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec. 63.5515(b). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.5515(b).
0
9. Section 63.5575 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5575 What notifications must I submit and when?
You must submit each notification in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to you by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart.
Initial notifications and Notification of Compliance Status Reports
shall be electronically submitted in portable document format (PDF)
following the procedure specified in Sec. 63.5580(g).
0
10. Section 63.5580 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2);
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(14); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.5580 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submitting reports under Sec. 63.10, you must submit each compliance
report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following
the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, if you had a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you
took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, the compliance report must include the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required
for any new or reconstruction source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019. After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this section
is no longer relevant.
* * * * *
(e) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit or operating
limit in this subpart (see Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart), you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1)
through (14) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
(14) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over
[[Page 47377]]
any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate
the emissions.
* * * * *
(g) Submitting notifications or reports electronically. If you are
required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit notifications or reports
to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Notifications must be submitted as PDFs
to CEDRI. You must use the semi-annual compliance report template on
the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The semi-annual compliance report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business
information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the
appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(h) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(i) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2), you must submit the results of
the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in this
paragraph (i).
(j) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to
timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA
system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(j)(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 5 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) 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
[[Page 47378]]
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.
(k) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(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) 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.
0
11. Section 63.5590 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5590 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via 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 EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
12. Table 2 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Operating Limits
As required in Sec. 63.5505(b), you must meet the appropriate
operating limits in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following control
technique . . . you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser...................... maintain the daily average condenser
outlet gas or condensed liquid
temperature no higher than the
value established during the
compliance demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer............... a. for periods of normal operation,
maintain the daily average thermal
oxidizer firebox temperature no
lower than the value established
during the compliance demonstration
b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
sources and new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after June
11, 2002, but on or before
September 9, 2019, and immediately
upon startup for new or
reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after September 9, 2019,
maintain documentation for periods
of startup demonstrating that the
oxidizer was properly operating
(e.g., firebox temperature had
reached the setpoint temperature)
prior to emission unit startup.
3. water scrubber................. a. for periods of normal operation,
maintain the daily average scrubber
pressure drop and scrubber liquid
flow rate within the range of
values established during the
compliance demonstration;
b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
sources and new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after June
11, 2002, but on or before
September 9, 2019], and immediately
upon startup for new or
reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after September 9, 2019,
maintain documentation for periods
of startup and shutdown to confirm
that the scrubber is operating
properly prior to emission unit
startup and continues to operate
properly until emission unit
shutdown is complete. Appropriate
startup and shutdown operating
parameters may be based on
equipment design, manufacturer's
recommendations, or other site-
specific operating values
established for normal operating
periods.
4. caustic scrubber............... a. for periods of normal operation,
maintain the daily average scrubber
pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow
rate, and scrubber liquid pH,
conductivity, or alkalinity within
the range of values established
during the compliance
demonstration;
b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
sources and new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after June
11, 2002, but on or before
September 9, 2019, and immediately
upon startup for new or
reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after September 9, 2019,
maintain documentation for periods
of startup and shutdown to confirm
that the scrubber is operating
properly prior to emission unit
startup and continues to operate
properly until emission unit
shutdown is complete. Appropriate
startup and shutdown operating
parameters may be based on
equipment design, manufacturer's
recommendations, or other site-
specific operating values
established for normal operating
periods.
5. flare.......................... maintain the presence of a pilot
flame.
6. biofilter...................... maintain the daily average biofilter
inlet gas temperature, biofilter
effluent pH or conductivity, and
pressure drop within the operating
values established during the
compliance demonstration.
[[Page 47379]]
7. carbon absorber................ maintain the regeneration frequency,
total regeneration adsorber stream
mass or volumetric flow during
carbon bed regeneration, and
temperature of the carbon bed after
regeneration (and within 15 minutes
of completing any cooling cycle(s))
for each regeneration cycle within
the values established during the
compliance demonstration.
8. oil absorber................... maintain the daily average
absorption liquid flow, absorption
liquid temperature, and steam flow
within the values established
during the compliance
demonstration.
9. any of the control techniques if using a CEMS, maintain the daily
specified in this table. average control efficiency of each
control device no lower than the
value established during the
compliance demonstration.
10. any of the control techniques a. if you wish to establish
specified in this table. alternative operating parameters,
submit the application for approval
of the alternative operating
parameters no later than the
notification of the performance
test or CEMS performance evaluation
or no later than 60 days prior to
any other initial compliance
demonstration;
b. the application must include:
Information justifying the request
for alternative operating
parameters (such as the
infeasibility or impracticality of
using the operating parameters in
this final rule); a description of
the proposed alternative control
device operating parameters; the
monitoring approach; the frequency
of measuring and recording the
alternative parameters; how the
operating limits are to be
calculated; and information
documenting that the alternative
operating parameters would provide
equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the standard;
c. install, operate, and maintain
the alternative parameter
monitoring systems in accordance
with the application approved by
the Administrator;
d. establish operating limits during
the initial compliance
demonstration based on the
alternative operating parameters
included in the approved
application; and
e. maintain the daily average
alternative operating parameter
values within the values
established during the compliance
demonstration.
11. alternative control technique. a. submit for approval no later than
the notification of the performance
test or CEMS performance evaluation
or no later than 60 days prior to
any other initial compliance
demonstration a proposed site-
specific plan that includes: A
description of the alternative
control device; test results
verifying the performance of the
control device; the appropriate
operating parameters that will be
monitored; and the frequency of
measuring and recording to
establish continuous compliance
with the operating limits;
b. install, operate, and maintain
the parameter monitoring system for
the alternative control device in
accordance with the plan approved
by the Administrator;
c. establish operating limits during
the initial compliance
demonstration based on the
operating parameters for the
alternative control device included
in the approved plan; and
d. maintain the daily average
operating parameter values for the
alternative control technique
within the values established
during the compliance
demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
13. Table 3 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits and Work Practice Standards
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you
must demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission
limits and work practice standards according to the requirements in the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the following you have demonstrated
For . . . at . . . emission limit or work initial compliance if .
practice standard . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all viscose process a. each existing i. reduce total (1) reduce total
vents. cellulose food casing uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled sulfide
operation. emissions (reported as emissions (reported as
carbon disulfide) by carbon disulfide) by
at least 25% based on at least 25% based on
a 6-month rolling a 6-month rolling
average; average;
ii. for each vent (2) for each vent
stream that you stream that you
control using a control using a
control device, route control device, route
the vent stream the vent stream
through a closed-vent through a closed-vent
system to the control system to the control
device; and. device; and
iii. comply with the (3) comply with the
work practice standard work practice standard
for closed-vent for closed-vent
systems. systems.
[[Page 47380]]
b. each new cellulose i. reduce total (1) the average
food casing operation. uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled total
emissions (reported as sulfide emissions,
carbon disulfide) by determined during the
at least 75% based on month-long compliance
a 6-month rolling demonstration or using
average; engineering
ii. for each vent assessments, are
stream that you reduced by at least
control using a 75%;
control device, route (2) you have a record
the vent stream of the range of
through a closed-vent operating parameter
system to the control values over the month-
device; and. long compliance
iii. comply with the demonstration during
work practice standard which the average
for closed-vent uncontrolled total
systems. sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least
75%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
c. each existing rayon i. reduce total (1) the average
operation. uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled total
emissions (reported as sulfide emissions,
carbon disulfide) by determined during the
at least 35% within 3 month-long compliance
years after the demonstration or using
effective date based engineering
on a 6-month rolling assessments, are
average; for each vent reduced by at least
stream that you 35% within 3 years
control using a after the effective
control device, route date;
the vent stream (2) you have a record
through a closed-vent of the average
system to the control operating parameter
device; and comply values over the month-
with the work practice long compliance
standard for closed- demonstration during
vent systems; and which the average
uncontrolled total
sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least
35%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems;
and
ii. reduce total (1) the average
uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled total
emissions (reported as sulfide emissions,
carbon disulfide) by determined during the
at least 40% within 8 month-long compliance
years after the demonstration or using
effective date based engineering
on a 6-month rolling assessments, are
average; for each vent reduced by at least
stream that you 40% within 8 years
control using a after the effective
control device, route date;
the vent stream (2) you have a record
through a closed-vent of the average
system to the control operating parameter
device; and comply values over the month-
with the work practice long compliance
standard for closed- demonstration during
vent systems. which the average
uncontrolled total
sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least
40%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of the total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
[[Page 47381]]
d. each new rayon i. reduce total (1) the average
operation. uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled total
emissions (reported as sulfide emissions,
carbon disulfide) by determined during the
at least 75%; based on month-long compliance
a 6-month rolling demonstration or using
average; engineering
ii. for each vent assessments, are
stream that you reduced by at least
control using a 75%;
control device, route (2) you have a record
the vent stream of the average
through a closed-vent operating parameter
system to the control values over the month-
device; and. long compliance
iii. comply with the demonstration during
work practice standard which the average
for closed-vent uncontrolled total
systems. sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least
75%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of total sulfide
missions; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
e. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) the average
cellulosic sponge uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled total
operation. emissions (reported as sulfide emissions,
carbon disulfide) by determined during the
at least 75% based on month-long compliance
a 6-month rolling demonstration or using
average; engineering
ii. for each vent assessments, are
stream that you reduced by at least
control using a 75%;
control device, route (2) you have a record
the vent stream of the average
through a closed-vent operating parameter
system to the control values over the month-
device; and. long compliance
iii. comply with the demonstration during
work practice standard which the average
for closed-vent uncontrolled total
systems. sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least
75%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
and the percent
reduction of total
sulfide emissions; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
f. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) the average
cellophane operation. uncontrolled sulfide uncontrolled total
emissions (reported as sulfide emissions,
carbon disulfide) by determined during the
at least 75% based on month-long compliance
a 6-month rolling demonstration or using
average; engineering
ii. for each vent assessments, are
stream that you reduced by at least
control using a 75%;
control device (except (2) you have a record
for retractable hoods of the average
over sulfuric acid operating parameter
baths at a cellophane values over the month-
operation), route the long compliance
vent stream through a demonstration during
closed-vent system to which the average
the control device; uncontrolled total
and. sulfide emissions were
iii. comply with the reduced by at least
work practice standard 75%;
for closed-vent (3) you prepare a
systems. material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
[[Page 47382]]
2. the sum of all solvent coating a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled (1) the average
process vents. cellophane operation. toluene emissions by uncontrolled toluene
at least 95% based on emissions, determined
a 6-month rolling during the month-long
average; compliance
ii. for each vent demonstration or using
stream that you engineering
control using a assessments, are
control device, route reduced by at least
the vent stream 95%;
through a closed-vent (2) you have a record
system to the control of the average
device; and. operating parameter
iii. comply with the values over the month-
work practice standard long compliance
for closed-vent demonstration during
systems. which the average
uncontrolled toluene
emissions were reduced
by at least 95%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of toluene emissions;
and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
3. the sum of all cellulose ether a. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) average
process vents. cellulose ether uncontrolled organic uncontrolled total
operation using a HAP emissions by at organic HAP emissions,
performance test to least 99%; ii. for measured during the
demonstrate initial each vent stream that performance test or
compliance; or. you control using a determined using
control device, route engineering estimates
the vent stream are reduced by at
through a closed-vent least 99%;
system to the control (2) you have a record
device; and iii. of the average
comply with the work operating parameter
practice standard for values over the
closed-vent systems; performance test
or during which the
average uncontrolled
total organic HAP
emissions were reduced
by at least 99%; and
(3) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems;
or
b. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) average
cellulose ether uncontrolled organic uncontrolled total
operation using a HAP emissions by at organic HAP emissions,
material balance least 99% based on a 6- determined during the
compliance month rolling average; month-long compliance
demonstration to ii. for each vent demonstration or using
demonstrate initial stream that you engineering estimates
compliance. control using a are reduced by at
control device, route least 99%;
the vent stream (2) you have a record
through a closed-vent of the average
system to the control operation parameter
device; and iii. values over the month-
comply with the work long compliance
practice standard for demonstration during
closed-vent systems; which the average
or. uncontrolled total
organic HAP emissions
were reduced by at
least 99%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of total organic HAP
emissions;
(4) if you use extended
cookout to comply, you
measure the HAP
charged to the
reactor, record the
grade of product
produced, and then
calculate reactor
emissions prior to
extended cookout by
taking a percentage of
the total HAP charged.
4. closed-loop systems............... each existing or new operate and maintain you have a record
cellulose ether the closed-loop system certifying that a
operation. for cellulose ether closed-loop system is
operations. in use for cellulose
ether operations.
[[Page 47383]]
5. each carbon disulfide unloading a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled (1) you have a record
and storage operation. viscose process carbon disulfide documenting the 83%
affected source. emissions by at least reduction in
83% from unloading and uncontrolled carbon
storage operations disulfide emissions;
based on a 6-month and
rolling average if you (2) if venting to a
use an alternative control device to
control technique not reduce emissions, you
listed in this table comply with the
for carbon disulfide initial compliance
unloading and storage requirements for
operations; if using a closed-vent systems;
control device to
reduce emissions,
route emissions
through a closed-vent
system to the control
device; and comply
with the work practice
standard for closed-
vent systems;
ii. reduce uncontrolled (1) you comply with the
carbon disulfide by at initial compliance
least 0.14% from requirements for
viscose process vents viscose process vents
based on a 6-month at existing or new
rolling average; for cellulose food casing,
each vent stream that rayon, cellulosic
you control using a sponge, or cellophane
control device, route operations, as
the vent stream applicable;
through a closed-vent (2) the 0.14% reduction
system to the control must be in addition to
device; and comply the reduction already
with the work practice required for viscose
standard for closed- process vents at
vent systems; existing or new
cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellulosic
sponge, or cellophane
operations, as
applicable; and
(3) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems;
iii. install a nitrogen you have a record
unloading and storage certifying that a
system; or nitrogen unloading and
storage system is in
use; or
iv. install a nitrogen (1) you have a record
unloading system; certifying that a
reduce uncontrolled nitrogen unloading
carbon disulfide by at system is in use;
least 0.045% from (2) you comply with the
viscose process vents initial compliance
based on a 6-month requirements for
rolling average; for viscose process vents
each vent stream that at existing or new
you control using a cellulose food casing,
control device, route rayon, cellulosic
the vent stream sponge, or cellophane
through a closed-vent operations, as
system to the control applicable;
device; and comply (3) the 0.045%
with the work practice reduction must be in
standard for closed- addition to the
vent systems. reduction already
required for viscose
process vents at
cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellulosic
sponge, or cellophane
operations, as
applicable; and
(4) you comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
[[Page 47384]]
6. each toluene storage vessel....... a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled (1) the average
cellophane operation. toluene emissions by uncontrolled toluene
at least 95% based on emissions, determined
a 6-month rolling during the month-long
average; compliance
ii. if using a control demonstration or using
device to reduce engineering
emissions, route the assessments, are
emissions through a reduced by at least
closed-vent system to 95%;
the control device; (2) you have a record
and. of the average
iii. comply with the operating parameter
work practice standard values over the month-
for closed-vent long compliance
systems. demonstration during
which the average
uncontrolled toluene
emissions were reduced
by at least 95%;
(3) you prepare a
material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of toluene emissions;
and
(4) if venting to a
control device to
reduce emissions, you
comply with the
initial compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
7. equipment leaks................... a. each existing or new i. comply with the you comply with the
cellulose ether applicable equipment applicable
operation. leak standards of Sec. requirements described
Sec. 63.162 through in the Notification of
63.179; or Compliance Status
Report provisions in
Sec. 63.182(a)(2)
and (c)(1) through
(3), except that
references to the term
``process unit'' mean
``cellulose ether
process unit'' for the
purposes of this
subpart; or
ii. comply with the you comply with the
applicable equipment applicable
leak standards of Sec. requirements described
Sec. 63.1021 in the Initial
through 63.1027. Compliance Status
Report provisions of
Sec. 63.1039(a),
except that references
to the term ``process
unit'' mean
``cellulose ether
process unit'' for the
purposes of this
subpart.
8. all sources of wastewater each existing or new comply with the you comply with the
emissions. cellulose ether applicable wastewater applicability and
operation. provisions of Sec. Group 1/Group 2
63.105 and Sec. Sec. determination
63.132 through 63.140. provisions of Sec.
63.144 and the initial
compliance provisions
of Sec. Sec. 63.105
and 63.145.
9. liquid streams in open systems.... each existing or new comply with the you install emission
cellulose ether applicable provisions suppression equipment
operation. of Sec. 63.149, and conduct an initial
except that references inspection according
to ``chemical to the provisions of
manufacturing process to Sec. Sec. 63.133
unit'' mean through 63.137.
``cellulose ether
process unit'' for the
purposes of this
subpart.
10. closed-vent system used to route a. each existing or new i. conduct annual (1) you conduct an
emissions to a control device. affected source. inspections, repair initial inspection of
leaks, and maintain the closed-vent system
records as specified and maintain records
in Sec. 63.148. according to Sec.
63.148;
(2) you prepare a
written plan for
inspecting unsafe-to-
inspect and difficult-
to-inspect equipment
according to Sec.
63.148(g)(2) and
(h)(2); and
(3) you repair any
leaks and maintain
records according to
Sec. 63.148.
11. closed-vent system containing a a. each existing or new i. install, calibrate, you have a record
bypass line that could divert a vent affected source. maintain, and operate documenting that you
stream away from a control device, a flow indicator as installed a flow
except for equipment needed for specified in Sec. indicator as specified
safety purposes (described in Sec. 63.148(f)(1); or in Table 1 to this
63.148(f)(3)). subpart; or
[[Page 47385]]
ii. secure the bypass you have record
line valve in the documenting that you
closed position with a have secured the
car-seal or lock-and- bypass line valve as
key type configuration specified in Table 1
and inspect the seal to this subpart.
or closure mechanism
at least once per
month as specified in
Sec. 63.148(f)(2).
12. heat exchanger system that cools a. each existing or new i. monitor and repair (1) you determine that
process equipment or materials in affected source. the heat exchanger the heat exchanger
the process unit. system according to system is exempt from
Sec. 63.104(a) monitoring
through (e), except requirements because
that references to it meets one of the
``chemical conditions in Sec.
manufacturing process 63.104(a)(1) through
unit'' mean (6), and you document
``cellulose food this finding in your
casing, rayon, Notification of
cellulosic sponge, Compliance Status
cellophane, or Report; or
cellulose ether (2) if your heat
process unit'' for the exchanger system is
purposes of this not exempt, you
subpart. identify in your
Notification of
Compliance Status
Report the HAP or
other representative
substance that you
will monitor, or you
prepare and maintain a
site-specific plan
containing the
information required
by Sec. 63.104(c)
(1) (i) through (iv)
that documents the
procedures you will
use to detect leaks by
monitoring surrogate
indicators of the
leak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
14. Table 4 to Subpart UUUU is amended to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5530(b) and 63.5535(a), (b), (g)(1),
and (h)(1), you must conduct performance tests, other initial
compliance demonstrations, and CEMS performance evaluations and
establish operating limits according to the requirements in the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
according to the
For . . . at . . . you must . . . using . . . following
requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all process vents. a. the sum of all i. select sampling EPA Method 1 or 1A sampling sites
process vents. port's location in appendix A-1 must be located
and the number of to 40 CFR part 60 at the inlet and
traverse points;. of this chapter; outlet to each
control device;
ii. determine EPA Method 2, 2A, you may use EPA
velocity and 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G Method 2A, 2C,
volumetric flow in appendices A-1 2D, 2F, or 2G as
rate;. and A-2 to part an alternative to
60 of this using EPA Method
chapter. 2, as
appropriate;
iii. conduct gas (1) EPA Method 3, you may use EPA
analysis; and,. 3A, or 3B in Method 3A or 3B
appendix A-2 to as an alternative
part 60 of this to using EPA
chapter; or, Method 3; or,
(2) ASME PTC 19.10- you may use ASME
1981--Part 10 PTC 19.10-1981--
(incorporated by Part 10 as an
reference--see alternative to
Sec. 63.14); using the manual
and, procedures (but
not instrumental
procedures) in
EPA Method 3B.
iv. measure EPA Method 4 in
moisture content appendix A-3 to
of the stack gas. part 60 of this
chapter.
2. the sum of all viscose a. each existing i. measure total (1) EPA Method 15 (a) you must
process vents. or new viscose sulfide emissions. in appendix A-5 conduct testing
process source. to part 60 of of emissions at
this chapter; or the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
(b) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
viscose process
vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
viscose process
vents at normal
operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch viscose
process vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(d) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration; or
(2) carbon (a) you must
disulfide and/or measure emissions
hydrogen sulfide at the inlet and
CEMS, as outlet of each
applicable; control device
using CEMS;
[[Page 47386]]
(b) you must
install, operate,
and maintain the
CEMS according to
the applicable
performance
specification (PS-
7, PS-8, PS-9, or
PS-15) of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix
B; and
(c) you must
collect CEMS
emissions data at
the inlet and
outlet of each
control device
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CEMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
3. the sum of all solvent a. each existing i. measure toluene (1) EPA Method 18 (a) you must
coating process vents. or new cellophane emissions. in appendix A-6 conduct testing
operation. to part 60 of of emissions at
this chapter, or the inlet and
Method 320 in outlet of each
appendix A to control device;
part 63; or.
(b) you may use
EPA Method 18 or
320 to determine
the control
efficiency of any
control device
for organic
compounds; for a
combustion
device, you must
use only HAP that
are present in
the inlet to the
control device to
characterize the
percent reduction
across the
combustion
device;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
solvent coating
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
solvent coating
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch solvent
coating process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch solvent
coating process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(2) ASTM D6420-99 (a) you must
(Reapproved 2010) conduct testing
(incorporated by of emissions at
reference--see the inlet and
Sec. 63.14); or. outlet of each
control device;
(b) you may use
ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2010)
as an alternative
to EPA Method 18
only where: the
target
compound(s) are
known and are
listed in ASTM
D6420-99 as
measurable; this
ASTM should not
be used for
methane and
ethane because
their atomic mass
is less than 35;
ASTM D6420 should
never be
specified as a
total VOC method;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
solvent coating
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
solvent coating
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch solvent
coating process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(3) ASTM D6348- (a) you must
12e1. conduct testing
of emissions at
the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
[[Page 47387]]
(b) you may use
ASTM D6348-12e1
as an alternative
to EPA Method 320
only where the
following
conditions are
met: (1) The test
plan preparation
and
implementation in
the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-03,
Sections A1
through A8 are
mandatory; and
(2) in ASTM D6348-
03 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking
Technique), the
percent recovery
(%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
greater than or
equal to 70
percent and less
than or equal to
130 percent. If
the %R value does
not meet this
criterion for a
target compound,
the test data are
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
the Stack))/(%R)
x 100.
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
solvent coating
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
solvent coating
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch solvent
coating process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
4. the sum of all cellulose a. each existing i. measure total (1) EPA Method 18 (a) you must
ether process vents. or new cellulose organic HAP in appendix A-6 conduct testing
ether operation. emissions. to part 60 of of emissions at
this chapter or the inlet and
Method 320 in outlet of each
appendix A to control device;
part 63, or. (b) you may use
EPA Method 18 or
320 to determine
the control
efficiency of any
control device
for organic
compounds; for a
combustion
device, you must
use only HAP that
are present in
the inlet to the
control device to
characterize the
percent reduction
across the
combustion
device;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch cellulose
ether process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch cellulose
ether process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(2) ASTM D6420-99 (a) you must
(Reapproved 2010) conduct testing
(incorporated by of emissions at
reference--see the inlet and
Sec. 63.14); or. outlet of each
control device;
[[Page 47388]]
(b) you may use
ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2010)
as an alternative
to EPA Method 18
only where: the
target
compound(s) are
known and are
listed in ASTM
D6420-99 as
measurable; this
ASTM should not
be used for
methane and
ethane because
their atomic mass
is less than 35;
ASTM D6420 should
never be
specified as a
total VOC method;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch cellulose
ether process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
performance test
and determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
performance test.
(3) ASTM D6348- (a) you must
12e1. conduct testing
of emissions at
the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
(b) you may use
ASTM D6348-12e1
as an alternative
to EPA Method 320
only where the
following
conditions are
met: (1) The test
plan preparation
and
implementation in
the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-03,
Sections A1
through A8 are
mandatory; and
(2) in ASTM D6348-
03 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking
Technique), the
percent recovery
(%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
greater than or
equal to 70
percent and less
than or equal to
130 percent. If
the %R value does
not meet this
criterion for a
target compound,
the test data are
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
the Stack))/(%R)
x 100.
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
solvent coating
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
solvent coating
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch solvent
coating process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(3) EPA Method 25 (a) you must
in appendix A-7 conduct testing
to part 60 of of emissions at
this chapter; or. the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
(b) you must
conduct testing
of emissions at
the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
[[Page 47389]]
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch cellulose
ether process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
performance test
and determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
performance test;
or
(4) EPA Method 25A (a) you must
in appendix A-7 conduct testing
to part 60 of of emissions at
this chapter. the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
(b) you may use
EPA Method 25A
if: an exhaust
gas volatile
organic matter
concentration of
50 ppmv or less
is required in
order to comply
with the emission
limit; the
volatile organic
matter
concentration at
the inlet to the
control device
and the required
level of control
are such as to
result in exhaust
volatile organic
matter
concentrations of
50 ppmv or less;
or because of the
high control
efficiency of the
control device,
the anticipated
volatile organic
matter
concentration at
the control
device exhaust is
50 ppmv or less,
regardless of the
inlet
concentration;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
cellulose ether
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch cellulose
ether process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part;
and,
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
performance test
and determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
performance test.
5. each toluene storage vessel.. a. each existing i. measure toluene (1) EPA Method 18 (a) if venting to
or new cellophane emissions. in appendix A-6 a control device
operation. to part 60 of to reduce
this chapter or emissions, you
Method 320 in must conduct
appendix A to testing of
part 63; or. emissions at the
inlet and outlet
of each control
device;
(b) you may use
EPA Method 18 or
320 to determine
the control
efficiency of any
control device
for organic
compounds; for a
combustion
device, you must
use only HAP that
are present in
the inlet to the
control device to
characterize the
percent reduction
across the
combustion
device;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
storage vessel
vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
storage vessel
vents at normal
operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535 for
continuous
process vents;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch storage
vessel vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c) for
batch process
vents, except
that the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part;
and,
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration; or
(2) ASTM D6420-99 (a) if venting to
(Reapproved 2010) a control device
(incorporated by to reduce
reference--see emissions, you
Sec. 63.14); or. must conduct
testing of
emissions at the
inlet and outlet
of each control
device;
[[Page 47390]]
(b) you may use
ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2010)
as an alternative
to EPA Method 18
only where: the
target
compound(s) are
known and are
listed in ASTM
D6420-99 as
measurable; this
ASTM should not
be used for
methane and
ethane because
their atomic mass
is less than 35;
ASTM D6420 should
never be
specified as a
total VOC method;
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
storage vessel
vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
storage vessel
vents at normal
operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535 for
continuous
process vents;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch storage
vessel vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c) for
batch process
vents, except
that the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part;
and,
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(3) ASTM D6348- (a) you must
12e1. conduct testing
of emissions at
the inlet and
outlet of each
control device;
(b) you may use
ASTM D6348-12e1
as an alternative
to EPA Method 320
only where the
following
conditions are
met: (1) The test
plan preparation
and
implementation in
the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-03,
Sections A1
through A8 are
mandatory; and
(2) in ASTM D6348-
03 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking
Technique), the
percent recovery
(%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
greater than or
equal to 70
percent and less
than or equal to
130 percent. If
the %R value does
not meet this
criterion for a
target compound,
the test data are
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
the Stack))/(%R)
x 100.
(c) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
continuous
solvent coating
process vents and
combinations of
batch and
continuous
solvent coating
process vents at
normal operating
conditions, as
specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must
conduct testing
of emissions from
batch solvent
coating process
vents as
specified in Sec.
63.490(c),
except that the
emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under this
subpart supersede
the emission
reductions
required for
process vents
under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must
collect CPMS data
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CPMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
6. the sum of all process vents a. each existing i. measure visible (1) EPA Method 22 (a) you must
controlled using a flare. or new affected emissions. in appendix A-7 conduct the flare
source. to part 60 of visible emissions
this chapter. test according to
Sec. 63.11(b).
7. equipment leaks.............. a. each existing i. measure leak (1) applicable (a) you must
or new cellulose rate. equipment leak follow all
ether operation. test methods in requirements for
Sec. 63.180; or. the applicable
equipment leak
test methods in
Sec. 63.180; or
(2) applicable (a) you must
equipment leak follow all
test methods in requirements for
Sec. 63.1023. the applicable
equipment leak
test methods in
Sec. 63.1023.
[[Page 47391]]
8. all sources of wastewater a. each existing i. measure (1) applicable (a) You must
emissions. or new cellulose wastewater HAP wastewater test follow all
ether operation. emissions. methods and requirements for
procedures in the applicable
Sec. Sec. wastewater test
63.144 and methods and
63.145; or. procedures in
Sec. Sec.
63.144 and
63.145; or
(2) applicable (a) you must
wastewater test follow all
methods and requirements for
procedures in the applicable
Sec. Sec. waste water test
63.144 and methods and
63.145, using procedures in
ASTM D5790-95 Sec. Sec.
(Reapproved 2012) 63.144 and
as an alternative 63.145, except
to EPA Method 624 that you may use
in appendix A to ASTM D5790-95
part 163 of this (Reapproved 2012)
chapter.. as an alternative
to EPA Method
624, under the
condition that
this ASTM method
be used with the
sampling
procedures of EPA
Method 25D or an
equivalent
method.
9. any emission point........... a. each existing i. conduct a CEMS (1) applicable (a) you must
or new affected performance requirements in conduct the CEMS
source using a evaluation. Sec. 63.8 and performance
CEMS to applicable evaluation during
demonstrate performance the period of the
compliance. specification (PS- initial
7, PS-8, PS-9, or compliance
PS-15) in demonstration
appendix B to according to the
part 60 of this applicable
chapter. requirements in
Sec. 63.8 and
the applicable
performance
specification (PS-
7, PS-8, PS-9, or
PS-15) of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix
B;
(b) you must
install, operate,
and maintain the
CEMS according to
the applicable
performance
specification (PS-
7, PS-8, PS-9, or
PS-15) of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix
B; and
(c) you must
collect CEMS
emissions data at
the inlet and
outlet of each
control device
during the period
of the initial
compliance
demonstration and
determine the
CEMS operating
limit during the
period of the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
15. Table 5 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limits and Work Practice Standards
As required in Sec. 63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work practice
standards according to the requirements in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the following you must demonstrate
For . . . at . . . emission limit or work continuous compliance
practice standard . . . by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all viscose process a. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) maintaining a
vents. viscose process uncontrolled sulfide material balance that
affected source. emissions (reported as includes the pertinent
carbon disulfide) by data used to determine
at least the specified the percent reduction
percentage based on a of total sulfide
6-month rolling emissions;
average;. (2) documenting the
ii. for each vent percent reduction of
stream that you total sulfide
control using a emissions using the
control device (except pertinent data from
for retractable hoods the material balance;
over sulfuric acid and
baths at a cellophane (3) complying with the
operation), route the continuous compliance
vent stream through a requirements for
closed-vent system to closed-vent systems.
the control device;
and.
iii. comply with the
work practice standard
for closed-vent
systems (except for
retractable hoods over
sulfuric acid baths at
a cellophane
operation).
2. the sum of all solvent coating a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled (1) maintaining a
process vents. cellophane operation. toluene emissions by material balance that
at least 95% based on includes the pertinent
a 6-month rolling data used to determine
average;. the percent reduction
ii. for each vent of toluene emissions;
stream that you (2) documenting the
control using a percent reduction of
control device, route toluene emissions
the vent stream using the pertinent
through a closed-vent data from the material
system to the control balance; and
device; and. (3) complying with the
iii. comply with the continuous compliance
work practice standard requirements for
for closed-vent closed-vent systems.
systems.
3. the sum of all cellulose ether a. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) complying with the
process vents. cellulose ether uncontrolled organic continuous compliance
operation using a HAP emissions by at requirements for
performance test to least 99%;. closed-vent systems;
demonstrate initial ii. for each vent or
compliance; or. stream that you (2) if using extended
control using a cookout to comply,
control device, route monitoring reactor
the vent stream charges and keeping
through a closed-vent records to show that
system to the control extended cookout was
device; and,. employed.
iii. comply with the
work practice standard
for closed-vent
systems; or.
[[Page 47392]]
b. each existing or new i. reduce total (1) maintaining a
cellulose ether uncontrolled organic material balance that
operation using a HAP emissions by at includes the pertinent
material balance least 99% based on a 6- data used to determine
compliance month rolling average;. the percent reduction
demonstration to ii. for each vent of total organic HAP
demonstrate initial stream that you emissions;
compliance. control using a (2) documenting the
control device, route percent reduction of
the vent stream total organic HAP
through a closed-vent emissions using the
system to control pertinent data from
device; and. the material balance;
iii. comply with the (3) if using extended
work practice standard cookout to comply,
for closed-vent monitoring reactor
systems. charges and keeping
records to show that
extended cookout was
employed;
(4) complying with the
continuous compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
4. closed-loop systems............... each existing or new operate and maintain a keeping a record
cellulose either closed-loop system. certifying that a
operation. closed-loop system is
in use for cellulose
ether operations.
5. each carbon disulfide unloading a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled (1) keeping a record
and storage operation. viscose process carbon disulfide documenting the 83%
affected source. emissions by at least reduction in carbon
83% based on a 6-month disulfide emissions;
rolling average if you and (2) if venting to
use an alternative a control device to
control technique not reduce emissions,
listed in this table complying with the
for carbon disulfide continuous compliance
unloading and storage requirements for
operations; if using a closed-vent systems;
control device to
reduce emissions,
route emissions
through a closed-vent
system to the control
device; and comply
with the work practice
standard for closed-
vent systems;.
ii. reduce total (1) maintaining a
uncontrolled sulfide material balance that
emissions by at least includes the pertinent
0.14% from viscose data used to determine
process vents based on the percent reduction
a 6-month rolling of total sulfide
average; for each vent emissions;
stream that you (2) documenting the
control using a percent reduction of
control device, route total sulfide
the vent stream emissions using the
through a closed-vent pertinent data from
system to the control the material balance;
device; and comply and
with the work practice (3) complying with the
standard for closed- continuous compliance
vent systems;. requirements for
closed-vent systems;
iii. install a nitrogen Keeping a record
unloading and storage certifying that a
system; or. nitrogen unloading and
storage system is in
use; or
iv. install a nitrogen (1) keeping a record
unloading system; certifying that a
reduce total nitrogen unloading
uncontrolled sulfide system is in use;
emissions by at least (2) maintaining a
0.045% from viscose material balance that
process vents based on includes the pertinent
a 6-month rolling data used to determine
average; for each vent the percent reduction
stream that you of total sulfide
control using a emissions;
control device, route (3) documenting the
the vent stream percent reduction of
through a closed-vent total sulfide
system to the control emissions using the
device; and comply pertinent data from
with the work practice the material balance;
standard for closed- and
vent systems. (4) complying with the
continuous compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
6. each toluene storage vessel....... a. each existing or new a. each existing or new (1) maintaining a
cellophane operation. cellophane operation. material balance that
includes the pertinent
data used to determine
the percent reduction
of toluene emissions;
(2) documenting the
percent reduction of
toluene emissions
using the pertinent
data from the material
balance; and
(3) if venting to a
control device to
reduce emissions,
complying with the
continuous compliance
requirements for
closed-vent systems.
7. equipment leaks................... a. each existing or new i. applicable equipment complying with the
cellulose ether leak standards of Sec. applicable equipment
operation. Sec. 63.162 through leak continuous
63.179; or. compliance provisions
ii. applicable of Sec. Sec. 63.162
equipment leak through 63.179; or
standards of Sec. complying with the
Sec. 63.1021 through applicable equipment
63.1037. leak continuous
compliance provisions
of Sec. Sec.
63.1021 through
63.1037.
8. all sources of wastewater each existing or new applicable wastewater complying with the
emissions. cellulose either provisions of Sec. applicable wastewater
operation. 63.105 and Sec. Sec. continuous compliance
63.132 through provisions of Sec.
63.140.. Sec. 63.105, 63.143,
and 63.148.
9. liquid streams in open systems.... each existing or new comply with the conducting inspections,
cellulose ether applicable provisions repairing failures,
operation. of Sec. 63.149, documenting delay of
except that references repair, and
to ``chemical maintaining records of
manufacturing process failures and
unit'' mean corrective actions
``cellulose ether according to Sec.
process unit'' for the Sec. 63.133 through
purposes of this 63.137.
subpart.
[[Page 47393]]
10. closed-vent system used to route each existing or new conduct annual conducting the
emissions to a control device. affected source. inspections, repair inspections, repairing
leaks, maintain leaks, and maintaining
records as specified records according to
in Sec. 63.148. Sec. 63.148.
11. closed-vent system containing a a. each existing or new i. install, calibrate, (1) taking readings
bypass line that could divert a vent affected source. maintain, and operate from the flow
stream away from a control device, a flow indicator as indicator at least
except for equipment needed for specified in Sec. once every 15 minutes;
safety purposes (described in Sec. 63.148(f)(1); or. (2) maintaining hourly
63.148(f)(3). records of flow
indicator operation
and detection of any
diversion during the
hour, and
(3) recording all
periods when the vent
stream is diverted
from the control
stream or the flow
indicator is not
operating; or
....................... ii. secure the bypass (1) maintaining a
line valve in the record of the monthly
closed position with a visual inspection of
car-seal or lock-and- the seal or closure
key type configuration mechanism for the
and inspect the seal bypass line; and
or mechanism at least (2) recording all
once per month as periods when the seal
specified in Sec. mechanism is broken,
63.148(f)(2).. the bypass line valve
position has changed,
or the key for a lock-
and-key type lock has
been checked out.
12. heat exchanger system that cools a. each existing or new i. monitor and repair (1) monitoring for HAP
process equipment or materials in affected source. the heat exchanger compounds, other
the process unit. system according to substances, or
Sec. 63.104(a) surrogate indicators
through (e), except at the frequency
that references to specified in Sec.
``chemical 63.104(b) or (c);
manufacturing process (2) repairing leaks
unit'' mean within the time period
``cellulose food specified in Sec.
casing, rayon, 63.104(d)(1);
cellulosic sponge, (3) confirming that the
cellophane, or repair is successful
cellulose ether as specified in Sec.
process unit'' for the 63.104(d)(2);
purposes of this (4) following the
subpart. procedures in Sec.
63.104(e) if you
implement delay of
repair; and
(5) recording the
results of inspections
and repair according
to Sec.
63.104(f)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Table 6 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Operating Limits
As required in Sec. 63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the appropriate operating limits according to the
requirements in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you must demonstrate
For the following control for the following continuous
technique . . . operating limit . . compliance by . . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser................ maintain the daily collecting the
average condenser condenser outlet
outlet gas or gas or condensed
condensed liquid liquid temperature
temperature no data according to
higher than the Sec. 63.5545;
value established reducing the
during the condenser outlet
compliance gas temperature
demonstration. data to daily
averages; and
maintaining the
daily average
condenser outlet
gas or condensed
liquid temperature
no higher than the
value established
during the
compliance
demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer......... a. for normal collecting the
operations, thermal oxidizer
maintain the daily firebox temperature
average thermal data according to
oxidizer firebox Sec. 63.5545;
temperature no reducing the
lower than the thermal oxidizer
value established firebox temperature
during the data to daily
compliance averages; and
demonstration. maintaining the
daily average
thermal oxidizer
firebox temperature
no lower than the
value established
during the
compliance
demonstration.
b. for periods of collecting the
startup, maintain appropriate, site-
documentation specific data
demonstrating that needed to
the oxidizer was demonstrate that
properly operating the oxidizer was
(e.g., firebox properly operating
temperature had prior to emission
reached the unit start up; and
setpoint excluding firebox
temperature) prior temperature from
to emission unit the daily averages
startup. during emission
unit startup.
3. water scrubber........... a. for normal collecting the
operations, scrubber pressure
maintain the daily drop and scrubber
average scrubber liquid flow rate
pressure drop and data according to
scrubber liquid Sec. 63.5545;
flow rate within reducing the
the range of values scrubber parameter
established during data to daily
the compliance averages; and
demonstration. maintaining the
daily scrubber
parameter values
within the range of
values established
during the
compliance
demonstration.
[[Page 47394]]
b. for periods of collecting the
startup and appropriate, site-
shutdown, maintain specific data
documentation to needed to
confirm that the demonstrate that
scrubber is the scrubber was
operating properly operating properly
prior to emission during emission
unit startup and unit startup and
continues to emission unit
operate properly shutdown; and
until emission unit excluding
shutdown is parameters from the
complete. daily average
Appropriate startup calculations.
and shutdown
operating
parameters may be
based on equipment
design,
manufacturer's
recommendations, or
other site-specific
operating values
established for
normal operating
periods.
4. caustic scrubber......... a. for normal collecting the
operations, scrubber pressure
maintain the daily drop, scrubber
average scrubber liquid flow rate,
pressure drop, and scrubber liquid
scrubber liquid pH, conductivity,
flow rate, and or alkalinity data
scrubber liquid pH, according to Sec.
conductivity, or 63.5545; reducing
alkalinity within the scrubber
the range of values parameter data to
established during daily averages; and
the compliance maintaining the
demonstration. daily scrubber
parameter values
within the range of
values established
during the
compliance
demonstration.
b. for periods of collecting the
startup and appropriate, site-
shutdown, maintain specific data
documentation to needed to
confirm that the demonstrate that
scrubber is the scrubber was
operating properly operating properly
prior to emission during emission
unit startup and unit startup and
continues to emission unit
operate properly shutdown; and
until emission unit excluding
shutdown is parameters from the
complete. daily average
Appropriate startup calculations.
and shutdown
operating
parameters may be
based on equipment
design,
manufacturer's
recommendations, or
other site-specific
operating values
established for
normal operating
periods.
5. flare.................... maintain the collecting the pilot
presence of a pilot flame data
flame. according to Sec.
63.5545; and
maintaining the
presence of the
pilot flame.
6. biofilter................ maintain the daily collecting the
average biofilter biofilter inlet gas
inlet gas temperature,
temperature, biofilter effluent
biofilter effluent pH or conductivity,
pH or conductivity, and biofilter
and pressure drop pressure drop data
within the values according to Sec.
established during 63.5545; reducing
the compliance the biofilter
demonstration. parameter data to
daily averages; and
maintaining the
daily biofilter
parameter values
within the values
established during
the compliance
demonstration.
7. carbon absorber.......... maintain the collecting the data
regeneration on regeneration
frequency, total frequency, total
regeneration stream regeneration stream
mass or volumetric mass or volumetric
flow during carbon flow during carbon
bed regeneration bed regeneration
and temperature of and temperature of
the carbon bed the carbon bed
after regeneration after regeneration
(and within 15 (and within 15
minutes of minutes of
completing any completing any
cooling cycle(s)) cooling cycle(s))
for each for each
regeneration cycle regeneration cycle
within the values according to Sec.
established during 63.5545; and
the compliance maintaining carbon
demonstration. absorber parameter
values for each
regeneration cycle
within the values
established during
the compliance
demonstration.
8. oil absorber............. maintain the daily collecting the
average absorption absorption liquid
liquid flow, flow, absorption
absorption liquid liquid temperature,
temperature, and and steam flow data
steam flow within according to Sec.
the values 63.5545; reducing
established during the oil absorber
the compliance parameter data to
demonstration. daily averages; and
maintaining the
daily oil absorber
parameter values
within the values
established during
the compliance
demonstration.
9. any of the control if using a CEMS, collecting CEMS
techniques specified in maintain the daily emissions data at
this table. average control the inlet and
efficiency for each outlet of each
control device no control device
lower than the according to Sec.
value established 63.5545;
during the determining the
compliance control efficiency
demonstration. values for each
control device
using the inlet and
outlet CEMS
emissions data;
reducing the
control efficiency
values for each
control device to
daily averages; and
maintaining the
daily average
control efficiency
for each control
device no lower
than the value
established during
the compliance
demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
17. Table 7 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Notifications
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5490(c)(4), 63.5530(c), 63.5575, and
63.5595(b), you must submit the appropriate notifications specified in
the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you . . . then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. are required to conduct a submit a notification of intent
performance test. to conduct a performance test
at least 60 calendar days
before the performance test is
scheduled to begin, as
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.7(b)(1) and 63.9(e).
[[Page 47395]]
2. are required to conduct a CMS submit a notification of intent
performance evaluation. to conduct a CMS performance
evaluation at least 60
calendar days before the CMS
performance evaluation is
scheduled to begin, as
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.8(e)(2) and 63.9(g).
3. wish to use an alternative submit a request to use
monitoring method. alternative monitoring method
no later than the notification
of the initial performance
test or CMS performance
evaluation or 60 days prior to
any other initial compliance
demonstration, as specified in
Sec. 63.8(f)(4).
4. start up your affected source before submit an initial notification
June 11, 2002. no later than 120 days after
June 11, 2002, as specified in
Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
5. start up your new or reconstructed submit an initial notification
source on or after June 11, 2002. no later than 120 days after
you become subject to this
subpart, as specified in Sec.
63.9(b)(3).
6. cannot comply with the relevant submit a request for extension
standard by the applicable compliance of compliance no later than
date. 120 days before the compliance
date, as specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.9(c) and 63.6(i)(4).
7. are subject to special requirements notify the Administrator of
as specified in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and your compliance obligations no
(4). later than the initial
notification dates established
in Sec. 63.9(b) for new
sources not subject to the
special provisions, as
specified in Sec. 63.9(d).
8. are required to conduct visible notify the Administrator of the
emission observations to determine the anticipated date for
compliance of flares as specified in conducting the observations
Sec. 63.11(b)(4). specified in Sec.
63.6(h)(5), as specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.6(h)(4) and
63.9(f).
9. are required to conduct a a. submit a Notification of
performance test or other initial Compliance Status Report, as
compliance demonstration as specified specified in Sec. 63.9(h);
in Table 3 to this subpart. b. submit the Notification of
Compliance Status Report,
including the performance
test, CEMS performance
evaluation, and any other
initial compliance
demonstration results within
240 calendar days following
the compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.5495; and
c. beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], submit all
subsequent Notifications of
Compliance Status following
the procedure specified in
Sec. 63.5580(g), (j), and
(k).
10. comply with the equipment leak comply with the notification
requirements of subpart H of this part requirements specified in Sec.
for existing or new cellulose ether 63.182(a)(1) and (2), (b),
affected sources. and (c)(1) through (3) for
equipment leaks, with the
Notification of Compliance
Status Reports required in
subpart H included in the
Notification of Compliance
Status Report required in this
subpart.
11. comply with the equipment leak comply with the notification
requirements of subpart UU of this requirements specified in Sec.
part for existing or new cellulose 63.1039(a) for equipment
ether affected sources. leaks, with the Notification
Compliance Status Reports
required in subpart UU of this
part included in the
Notification of Compliance
Status Report required in this
subpart.
12. comply with the wastewater comply with the notification
requirements of subparts F and G of requirements specified in Sec.
this part for existing or new Sec. 63.146(a) and (b),
cellulose ether affected sources. 63.151, and 63.152(a)(1)
through (3) and (b)(1) through
(5) for wastewater, with the
Notification of Compliance
Status Reports required in
subpart G of this part
included in the Notification
of Compliance Status Report
required in this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
18. Table 8 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Reporting Requirements
As required in Sec. 63.5580, you must submit the appropriate
reports specified in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit a compliance report, which
must contain the following information . . and you must submit the
. report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. if there are no deviations from any semiannually as specified in
emission limit, operating limit, or work Sec. 63.5580(b);
practice standard during the reporting beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS
period, then the report must contain the AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
information specified in Sec. RULE IN THE FEDERAL
63.5580(c);. REGISTER], submit all
subsequent reports
following the procedure
specified in Sec.
63.5580(g).
2. if there were no periods during which
the CMS was out-of-control, then the
report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.5580(c)(6);.
3. if there is a deviation from any
emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard during the reporting
period, then the report must contain the
information specified in Sec.
63.5580(c) and (d);.
4. if there were periods during which the
CMS was out-of-control, then the report
must contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.5580(e);.
5. if prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you had a startup, shutdown,
or malfunction during the reporting
period and you took actions consistent
with your SSM plan, then the report must
contain the information specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i);.
[[Page 47396]]
6. if prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you had a startup, shutdown,
or malfunction during the reporting
period and you took actions that are not
consistent with your SSM plan, then the
report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii);.
7. the report must contain any change in
information already provided, as
specified in Sec. 63.9(j);.
8. for cellulose ether affected sources
complying with the equipment leak
requirements of subpart H of this part,
the report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.182(a)(3) and (6)
and (d)(2) through (4);.
9. for cellulose ether affected sources
complying with the equipment leak
requirements of subpart UU of this part,
the report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.1039(b);.
10. for cellulose ether affected sources
complying with the wastewater
requirements of subparts F and G of this
part, the report must contain the
information specified in Sec. Sec.
63.146(c) through (e) and 63.152(a)(4)
and (5) and (c) through (e);.
11. for affected sources complying with
the closed-vent system provisions in Sec.
63.148, the report must contain the
information specified in Sec.
63.148(j)(1);.
12. for affected sources complying with
the bypass line provisions in Sec.
63.148(f), the report must contain the
information specified in Sec.
63.148(j)(2) and (3);.
13. for affected sources invoking the
delay of repair provisions in Sec.
63.104(e) for heat exchanger systems, the
next compliance report must contain the
information in Sec. 63.104(f)(2)(i)
through (iv); if the leak remains
unrepaired, the information must also be
submitted in each subsequent compliance
report until the repair of the leak is
reported; and.
14. for storage vessels subject to the
emission limits and work practice
standards in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU, the
report must contain the periods of
planned routine maintenance during which
the control device does not comply with
the emission limits or work practice
standards in Table 1 to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
19. Table 9 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Recordkeeping Requirements
As required in Sec. 63.5585, you must keep the appropriate records
specified in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
then you must keep and the record(s)
If you operate . . . . . . must contain . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. an existing or new affected a copy of each all documentation
source. notification and supporting any
report that you Initial
submitted to Notification or
comply with this Notification of
subpart. Compliance Status
Report that you
submitted,
according to the
requirements in
Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(xiv),
and any
compliance report
required under
this subpart.
2. an existing or new affected a. the records in i. SSM plan;
source that commenced Sec. ii. when actions
construction or reconstruction 63.6(e)(3)(iii) taken during a
before September 9, 2019. through (iv) startup,
related to shutdown, or
startup, malfunction are
shutdown, and consistent with
malfunction prior the procedures
to [DATE 180 DAYS specified in the
AFTER DATE OF SSM plan, records
PUBLICATION OF demonstrating
FINAL RULE IN THE that the
FEDERAL REGISTER]. procedures
specified in the
plan were
followed;
iii. records of
the occurrence
and duration of
each startup,
shutdown, or
malfunction; and
iv. when actions
taken during a
startup,
shutdown, or
malfunction are
not consistent
with the
procedures
specified in the
SSM plan, records
of the actions
taken for that
event.
[[Page 47397]]
b. records related i. record the
to startup and date, time, and
shutdown, duration of each
failures to meet startup and/or
the standard, and shutdown period,
actions taken to including the
minimize periods when the
emissions after affected source
[DATE 180 DAYS was subject to
AFTER DATE OF the alternative
PUBLICATION OF operating
FINAL RULE IN THE parameters
FEDERAL REGISTER]. applicable to
startup and
shutdown;
ii. in the event
that an affected
unit fails to
meet an
applicable
standard, record
the number of
failures. For
each failure,
record the date,
time and duration
of each failure;
iii. for each
failure to meet
an applicable
standard, record
and retain a list
of the affected
sources or
equipment, an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated
pollutant emitted
over any emission
limit and a
description of
the method used
to estimate the
emissions; and
iv. record actions
taken to minimize
emissions in
accordance with
Sec.
63.5515(b), and
any corrective
actions taken to
return the
affected unit to
its normal or
usual manner of
operation.
3. a new or reconstructed a. records related i. record the
affected source that commenced to startup and date, time, and
construction or reconstruction shutdown, duration of each
after September 9, 2019. failures to meet startup and/or
the standard, and shutdown period,
actions taken to including the
minimize periods when the
emissions. affected source
was subject to
alternative
operating
parameters
applicable to
startup and
shutdown;
ii. in the event
that an affected
unit fails to
meet an
applicable
standard, record
the number of
failures. For
each failure,
record the date,
time and duration
of each failure;
iii. for each
failure to meet
an applicable
standard, record
and retain a list
of the affected
sources or
equipment, an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated
pollutant emitted
over any emission
limit and a
description of
the method used
to estimate the
emissions; and
iv. record actions
taken to minimize
emissions in
accordance with
Sec.
63.5515(b), and
any corrective
actions taken to
return the
affected unit to
its normal or
usual manner of
operation.
4. an existing or new affected a. a site-specific i. information
source. monitoring plan. regarding the
installation of
the CMS sampling
source probe or
other interface
at a measurement
location relative
to each affected
process unit such
that the
measurement is
representative of
control of the
exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or
downstream of the
last control
device);
ii. performance
and equipment
specifications
for the sample
interface, the
pollutant
concentration or
parametric signal
analyzer, and the
data collection
and reduction
system;
iii. performance
evaluation
procedures and
acceptance
criteria (e.g.,
calibrations);
iv. ongoing
operation and
maintenance
procedures in
accordance with
the general
requirements of
Sec. Sec.
63.8(c)(3) and
(4)(ii),
63.5515(b), and
63.5580(c)(6);
v. ongoing data
quality assurance
procedures in
accordance with
the general
requirements of
Sec.
63.8(d)(2); and
vi. ongoing
recordkeeping and
reporting
procedures in
accordance with
the general
requirements of
Sec. Sec.
63.10(c)(1)-(6),
(c)(9)-(14),
(e)(1), and
(e)(2)(i) and
63.5585.
5. an existing or new affected records of all results of
source. performance tests performance
and CEMS tests, CEMS
performance performance
evaluations, as evaluations, and
required in Sec. any other initial
63.10(b)(2)(viii compliance
) and any other demonstrations,
initial including
compliance analysis of
demonstrations. samples,
determination of
emissions, and
raw data.
[[Page 47398]]
6. an existing or new affected a. records for i. records
source. each CEMS. described in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(vi)
through (xi);
ii. previous
(superseded)
versions of the
performance
evaluation plan,
with the program
of corrective
action included
in the plan
required under
Sec.
63.8(d)(2);
iii. request for
alternatives to
relative accuracy
test for CEMS as
required in Sec.
63.8(f)(6)(i);
iv. records of the
date and time
that each
deviation started
and stopped, and
whether the
deviation
occurred during a
period of
startup,
shutdown, or
malfunction or
during another
period; and
v. records
required in Table
6 to Subpart UUUU
to show
continuous
compliance with
the operating
limit.
7. an existing or new affected a. records for i. records
source. each CPMS. required in Table
6 to Subpart UUUU
to show
continuous
compliance with
each operating
limit that
applies to you;
and
ii. results of
each CPMS
calibration,
validation check,
and inspection
required by Sec.
63.5545(b)(4).
8. an existing or new cellulose records of closed- records certifying
ether affected ether source. loop systems. that a closed-
loop system is in
use for cellulose
ether operations.
9. an existing or new viscose records of records of
process affected source. nitrogen nitrogen
unloading and unloading and
storage systems storage systems
or nitrogen or nitrogen
unloading systems. unloading systems
10. an existing or new viscose records of all pertinent data
process affected source. material balances. from the material
balances used to
estimate the 6-
month rolling
average percent
reduction in HAP
emissions.
11. an existing or new viscose records of documenting the
process affected source. calculations. percent reduction
in HAP emissions
using pertinent
data from the
material
balances.
12. an existing or new cellulose a. extended i. the amount of
ether affected source. cookout records. HAP charged to
the reactor;
ii. the grade of
product produced;
iii. the
calculated amount
of HAP remaining
before extended
cookout; and
iv. information
showing that
extended cookout
was employed.
13. an existing or new cellulose a. equipment leak i. the records
ether affected source. records. specified in Sec.
63.181 for
equipment leaks;
or
ii. the records
specified in
63.1038 for
equipment leaks.
14. an existing or new cellulose wastewater records the records
ether affected source. specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.105,
63.147, and
63.152(f) and (g)
for wastewater.
15. an existing or new affected closed-vent system the records
source. records. specified in Sec.
63.148(i).
16. an existing or new affected a. bypass line i. hourly records
source. records. of flow indicator
operation and
detection of any
diversion during
the hour and
records of all
periods when the
vent stream is
diverted from the
control stream or
the flow
indicator is not
operating; or
ii. the records of
the monthly
visual inspection
of the seal or
closure mechanism
and 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 lock
has been checked
out and records
of any car-seal
that has broken.
17. an existing or new affected heat exchanger records of the
source. system records. results of
inspections and
repair according
to source Sec.
63.104(f)(1).
18. an existing or new affected control device records of planned
source. maintenance routine
records. maintenance for
control devices
used to comply
with the percent
reduction
emission limit
for storage
vessels in Table
1 to Subpart
UUUU.
19. an existing or new affected safety device a record of each
source. records. time a safety
device is opened
to avoid unsafe
conditions
according to Sec.
63.5505(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47399]]
0
20. Table 10 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart UUUU
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5515(h) and 63.5600, you must comply
with the appropriate General Provisions requirements specified in the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart UUUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1....................... Applicability........ Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions, notifications.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions.......... Definitions for part 63 Yes
standards.
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Units and abbreviations Yes.
Abbreviations. for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4....................... Prohibited Activities Prohibited activities; Yes.
and Circumvention. compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5....................... Preconstruction Preconstruction review Yes.
Review and requirements of section
Notification 112(i)(1).
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Applicability........ General provisions apply Yes.
unless compliance
extension; general
provisions apply to area
sources that become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1) through (4)..... Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and effective date; 3 years
Reconstructed after effective date;
sources. upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction commences
for CAA section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................. Notification......... Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
New and major must comply with
Reconstructed Area major source and
Sources That Become standards immediately
Major. upon becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply when
they were an area source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1) and (2)......... Compliance Dates for Comply according to date Yes.
Existing Sources. in subpart, which must be
no later than 3 years
after effective date; for
CAA section 112(f)
standards, comply within
90 days of effective date
unless compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3) and (4)......... [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area major must comply with
Sources That Become major source standards by
Major. date indicated in subpart
or by equivalent time
period (e.g., 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d).................... [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).............. General Duty to You must operate and No, for new or
Minimize Emissions.. maintain affected source reconstructed sources
in a manner consistent which commenced
with safety and good air construction or
pollution control reconstruction after
practices for minimizing September 9, 2019, see
emissions. Sec. 63.5515 for
general duty
requirement. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to You must correct No, for new or
Correct Malfunctions malfunctions as soon as reconstructed sources
ASAP. practicable after their which commenced
occurrence. construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ Operation and Operation and maintenance Yes.
Maintenance requirements are
Requirements. enforceable independent
of emissions limitations
or other requirements in
relevant standards.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. [Reserved]...........
[[Page 47400]]
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. Startup, Shutdown, Requirement for startup, No, for new or
and Malfunction Plan. shutdown, and malfunction reconstructed sources
and SSM plan; content of which commenced
SSM plan. construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. SSM Exemption........ You must comply with No, for new or
emission standards at all reconstructed sources
times except during SSM. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3)......... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance/Finding operation and maintenance
of Compliance. plans, records,
inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1) through (3)..... Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................. SSM Exemption........ You must comply with No, for new or
opacity and visible reconstructed sources
emission standards at all which commenced
times except during SSM. construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources utilizing flares
before [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2) through (9)..... Opacity and Visible Requirements for opacity Yes, but only for flares
Emission (VE) and visible emission for which EPA Method 22
Standards. limits. observations are
required under Sec.
63.11(b).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1) through (16).... Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria Yes.
for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential President may exempt Yes.
Compliance Exemption. source category from
requirement to comply
with subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1) and (2)......... Performance Test Dates for conducting Yes.
Dates. initial performance test;
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations; must
conduct 180 days after
first subject to subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................. Section 114 Authority Administrator may require Yes.
a performance test under
CAA Section 114 at any
time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)................. Notification of Must notify Administrator Yes.
Performance Test. 60 days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)................. Notification of If rescheduling a Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date of
rescheduled test.
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality Assurance and Requirement to submit site- No.
Test Plan. specific test plan 60
days before the test or
on date Administrator
agrees with; test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal
and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Testing Facilities... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Performance Testing.. Performance tests must be No, see Sec. 63.5535
conducted under and Table 4.
representative
conditions; cannot
conduct performance tests
during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)................. Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes.
Conducting this subpart and EPA test
Performance Tests. methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)................. Test Run Duration.... Must have three test runs Yes.
of at least 1 hour each;
compliance is based on
arithmetic mean of three
runs; conditions when
data from an additional
test run can be used.
[[Page 47401]]
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).................... Waiver of Tests...... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................. Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................. Performance Performance specifications Yes.
Specifications. in Appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................. [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Monitoring with Unless your subpart says Yes.
Flares. otherwise, the
requirements for flares
in Sec. 63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)................. Monitoring........... Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2) and (3)......... Multiple Effluents Specific requirements for Yes.
and Multiple installing monitoring
Monitoring Systems. systems; must install on
each effluent before it
is combined and before it
is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise; if more than
one monitoring system on
an emission point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless
one monitoring system is
a backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1) and (c)(1)(i)... General Duty to Maintain monitoring system No, for new or
Minimize Emissions in a manner consistent reconstructed sources
and CMS Operation. with good air pollution which commenced
control practices. construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. Parts for Routine Keep parts for routine Yes.
Repairs. repairs readily available.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirements to Develop a written SSM plan No, for new or
develop SSM Plan for for CMS. reconstructed sources
CMS. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) and (3)......... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission
of parameter
measurements; must verify
operational status before
or at performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. Continuous Monitoring CMS must be operating No. Replaced with
System (CMS) except during breakdown, language in Sec.
Requirements. out-of control, repair, 63.5560.
maintenance, and high-
level calibration drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii)..... Continuous Monitoring Continuous opacity Yes, except that Sec.
System (CMS) monitoring systems (COMS) 63.8(c)(4)(i) does not
Requirements. must have a minimum of apply because subpart
one cycle of sampling and UUUU does not require
analysis for each COMS.
successive 10-second
period and one cycle of
data recording for each
successive 6-minute
period; CEMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of
operation for each
successive 15-minute
period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures... No. Subpart UUUU does not
Procedures. require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................. CMS Requirements..... Zero and high level No. Replaced with
calibration check language in Sec.
requirements; out-of- 63.5545.
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8)......... CMS Requirements..... Out-of-control periods, No. Replaced with
including reporting. language in Sec.
63.5580(c)(6).
Sec. 63.8(d).................... CMS Quality Control.. Requirements for CMS No, except for
quality control, requirements in Sec.
including calibration, 63.8(d)(2).
etc.; must keep quality
control plan on record
for 5 years; keep old
versions for 5 years
after revisions; program
of correction action to
be included in plan
required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2)..
[[Page 47402]]
Sec. 63.8(e).................... CMS Performance Notification, performance Yes, except that Sec.
Evaluation. evaluation test plan, 63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not
reports. apply because subpart
UUUU does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1) through (5)..... Alternative Procedures for Yes, except that no site-
Monitoring Method. Administrator to approve specific test plan is
alternative monitoring. required. The request to
use an alternative
monitoring method must
be submitted with the
notification of
performance test or CEMS
performance evaluation
or 60 days prior to any
initial compliance
demonstration.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to Procedures for Yes.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve
Test. alternative relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1) through (4)..... Data Reduction....... COMS 6-minute averages No. Replaced with
calculated over at least language in Sec.
36 evenly spaced data 63.5545(e).
points; CEMS 1-hour
averages computed over at
least four equally spaced
data points; data that
cannot be used in average.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................. Data Reduction....... Data that cannot be used No. Replaced with
in computing averages for language in Sec.
CEMS and COMS. 63.5560(b).
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) through (5)..... Initial Notifications Submit notification Yes.
subject 120 days after
effective date;
notification of intent to
construct or reconstruct;
notification of
commencement of
construction or
reconstruction;
notification of startup;
contents of each.
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for Can request if cannot Yes.
Compliance Extension. comply by date or if
installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d).................... Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for New proposal and promulgation
Source. and want to comply 3
years after effective
date.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of VE or Notify Administrator 30 Yes, but only for flares
Opacity Test. days prior. for which EPA Method 22
observations are
required as part of a
flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.9(g).................... Additional Notification of Yes, except that Sec.
Notifications When performance evaluation; 63.9(g)(2) does not
Using CMS. notification using COMS apply because subpart
data; notification that UUUU does not require
exceeded criterion for COMS.
relative accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1) through (6)..... Notification of Contents; due 60 days Yes.
Compliance Status after end of performance
Report. test or other compliance
demonstration, except for
opacity or VE, which are
due 30 days after; when
to submit to Federal vs.
State authority.
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Procedures for
Submittal Deadlines. Administrator to approve
change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes, except that the
Information. after the change. notification must be
submitted as part of the
next semiannual
compliance report, as
specified in Table 8 to
this subpart.
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping and Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension;
when to submit to Federal
vs. State authority;
procedures for owners of
more than one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ Recordkeeping and General requirements; keep Yes.
Reporting. all records readily
available; keep for 5
years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............. Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence and No, for new or
Occurrence and duration of each startup reconstructed sources
Duration of Startups or shutdown that causes which commenced
and Shutdowns. source to exceed emission construction or
limitation. reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], and
No thereafter.
[[Page 47403]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............ Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence and No, see Table 9 for
Failures to Meet a duration of each recordkeeping of (1)
Standard. malfunction of operation date, time and duration;
or air pollution control (2) listing of affected
and monitoring equipment. source or equipment, and
an estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated pollutant
emitted over the
standard; and (3)
actions to minimize
emissions and correct
the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Maintenance Records.. Records of maintenance Yes.
performed on air
pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).... Actions Taken to Records of actions taken No, for new or
Minimize Emissions during SSM to minimize reconstructed sources
During SSM. emissions. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and CMS Records.......... Malfunctions, inoperative, Yes.
(xi). out-of-control;
calibration checks,
adjustments, maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii) through Records.............. Measurements to Yes, including results of
(ix). demonstrate compliance EPA Method 22
with emission limits; observations required as
performance test, part of a flare
performance evaluation, compliance assessment.
and opacity/VE
observation results;
measurements to determine
conditions of performance
tests and performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Records.............. Records when under waiver. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Records.............. Records when using Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... Records.............. All documentation Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of
Compliance Status Report.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Records.............. Applicability Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through (6), Records.............. Additional records for CMS Yes.
(9) through (14).
Sec. 63.10(c)(7) and (8)........ Records.............. Records of excess No. Replaced with
emissions and parameter language in Table 9 to
monitoring exceedances this subpart.
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............... Use of SSM Plan...... Use SSM plan to satisfy No, for new or
recordkeeping reconstructed sources
requirements for which commenced
identification of construction or
malfunction, correction reconstruction after
action taken, and nature September 9, 2019. Yes,
of repairs to CMS. for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Requirement to report..... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Report of Performance When to submit to Federal Yes, except that Table 7
Test Results. or State authority. to this subpart
specifies the submittal
date for the
Notification of
Compliance Status
Report.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Reporting Opacity or What to report and when... Yes, but only for flares
VE Observations. for which EPA Method 22
observations are
required as part of a
flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress Reports..... Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)............. Periodic SSM Reports. Contents and submission of No, for new or
periodic SSM reports. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and No
thereafter. See Sec.
63.5580(c)(4) and Table
8 for malfunction
reporting requirements.
[[Page 47404]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)............ Immediate SSM Reports Contents and submission of No, for new or
immediate SSM reports. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. Yes,
for all other affected
sources before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] except that
the immediate SSM report
must be submitted as
part of the next
semiannual compliance
report, as specified in
Table 8 to this subpart,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (2)........ Additional CMS Must report results for Yes, except that Sec.
Reports. each CEMS on a unit; 63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not
written copy of apply because subpart
performance evaluation; UUUU does not require
three copies of COMS COMS.
performance evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i) through Reports.............. Schedule for reporting No. Replaced with
(iii). excess emissions and language in Sec.
parameter monitor 63.5580.
exceedance (now defined
as deviations).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)............ Excess Emissions Requirement to revert to No. Replaced with
Reports. quarterly submission if language in Sec.
there is an excess 63.5580.
emissions and parameter
monitor exceedance (now
defined as deviations);
provision to request
semiannual reporting
after compliance for 1
year; submit report by
30th day following end of
quarter or calendar half;
if there has not been an
exceedance or excess
emission (now defined as
deviations), report
contents is a statement
that there have been no
deviations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v)............. Excess Emissions Must submit report No. Replaced with
Reports. containing all of the language in Sec.
information in Sec. 63.5580.
63.10(c)(5) through (13),
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi) through Excess Emissions Requirements for reporting No. Replaced with
(viii). Report and Summary excess emissions for CMS language in Sec.
Report. (now called deviations); 63.5580.
requires all of the
information in Sec.
63.10(c)(5) through (13),
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ Reporting COMS Data.. Must submit COMS data with No. Subpart UUUU does not
performance test data. require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping or Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11...................... Control and Work Requirements for flares Yes.
Practice and alternative work
Requirements. practice for equipment
leaks.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and State authority to enforce Yes.
Delegations. standards.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses............ Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporations by Test methods incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information and information.
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16...................... Performance Track Requirements for Yes.
Provisions. Performance Track member
facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-18330 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P