[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69182-69269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24573]
[[Page 69181]]
Vol. 84
Tuesday,
No. 242
December 17, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 69182]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746; FRL-10001-98-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT85
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 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 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category. The EPA is proposing decisions
concerning the residual risk and technology review (RTR), including
proposing amendments pursuant to the technology review for equipment
leaks and heat exchange systems, and also proposing amendments pursuant
to the risk review to specifically address ethylene oxide emissions
from storage tanks, process vents, and equipment leaks. The EPA is also
proposing amendments to correct and clarify regulatory provisions
related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM), including removing general exemptions for periods of
SSM, adding work practice standards for periods of SSM where
appropriate, and clarifying regulatory provisions for certain vent
control bypasses. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to add monitoring and
operational requirements for flares that control ethylene oxide
emissions and flares used to control emissions from processes that
produce olefins and polyolefins; and add provisions for electronic
reporting of performance test results and reports, performance
evaluation reports, and compliance reports. We estimate that, if
finalized, these proposed amendments (not including the potential
excess emission reductions from flares) would reduce hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions from this source category by 116 tons per
year (tpy) and would reduce ethylene oxide emissions from this source
category by approximately 10 tpy.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 31,
2020. 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 January 16, 2020.
Public hearing. The EPA is planning to hold at least one public
hearing in response to this proposed action. Information about the
hearing, including location, date, and time, along with instructions on
how to register to speak at the hearing, will be published in a second
Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-organic-chemical-manufacturing-national-emission. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on
registering and attending a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0746, 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-2018-0746 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0746.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746, 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 Ms. Tegan Lavoie, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E-143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5110; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Matthew Woody,
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)
541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing
requirements, contact Ms. Gerri Garwood, 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) 541-2406; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John
Cox, 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)
564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. The EPA is planning to hold at least one public
hearing in response to this proposed action. Information about the
hearing, including location, date, and time, along with instructions on
how to register to speak at the hearing will be published in a second
Federal Register document.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. 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.
[[Page 69183]]
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0746. 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 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-2018-0746.
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:
ACA American Coatings Association
ACC American Chemistry Council
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
AFPM American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
AMEL alternative means of emission limitation
APCD air pollution control device
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT best available control technology
Btu British thermal unit
Btu/scf British thermal unit per standard cubic foot
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system(s)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EIS emissions inventory system
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FID flame ionization detector
FTIR fourier transfer infrared spectrometry
GACT generally available control technologies
HAPV hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
HRVOC highly reactive volatile organic compounds
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
LDAR leak detection and repair
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCPU miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
MPGF multi-point ground flare(s)
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHVcz net heating value in the combustion zone gas
NHVdil net heating value dilution parameter
NHVvg net heating value of flare vent gas
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PDH propane dehydrogenation
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmw parts per million by weight
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device(s)
psig pounds per square inch gauge
RACT reasonably available control technology
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SCC source classification code
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
[[Page 69184]]
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure Model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows below. In particular, section IV of this preamble
describes the majority of the Agency's rationale for the proposed
actions in this preamble. Section IV.A of this preamble specifies
proposed monitoring and operational requirements for a subset of flares
in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category to
ensure that the level of control from the original maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards is achieved by these air pollution
control devices (APCD). To ensure that Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112
standards continuously apply (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008)), section IV.A of this preamble also proposes work practice
standards for periods of SSM for when flares are used as an APCD,
proposes work practice standards for periods of SSM for certain vent
streams (i.e., pressure relief device (PRD) releases and maintenance
vents), and proposes clarifications for vent control bypasses for
certain vent streams (i.e., closed vent systems containing bypass
lines, and flares connected to fuel gas systems).
Section IV.B of this preamble summarizes the results of the risk
assessment while section IV.C summarizes our proposed decisions
regarding the results of the risk assessment, and proposes revisions
for storage tanks, process vents, and equipment leaks to reduce
emissions of ethylene oxide. Section IV.D of this preamble summarizes
the results of our technology review, and proposes revisions for heat
exchange systems and equipment leaks. Section IV.E of this preamble
summarizes other changes we are proposing, including general regulatory
language changes related to the removal of SSM exemptions, electronic
reporting, and other minor clarifications identified as part our review
of the NESHAP and as part of the other proposed revisions in this
proposal. Lastly, section IV.F of this preamble summarizes our
rationale for the compliance dates we are proposing.
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?
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 actions are we taking in addition to those identified in
the risk and technology review?
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. 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 Regulations 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 category that is 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. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. On
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), pursuant to specific listing requirements
in CAA section 112(c), the Agency published an initial list of 174
categories of major and area sources that would be subject to MACT
emission standards. Following this listing, in a November 7, 1996,
document (61 FR 57602), the Agency combined 21 of the 174 source
categories originally defined in the Initial List of Categories of
Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July
1992), and other organic chemical processes which were not included in
the original 174 source category list, into one source category called
the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes'' source category. In a
November 18, 1999, document (64 FR 63035), the Agency divided the
``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes'' source category into two
new source categories called the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing'' source category and the ``Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing'' source category. The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category includes any facility engaged in
benzyltrimethylammonium chloride production, carbonyl sulfide
production, chelating agents production, chlorinated paraffins
production, ethylidene norbornene production, explosives production,
hydrazine production, photographic chemicals production, phthalate
plasticizers production, rubber chemicals production, symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine production, oxybisphenoxarsine/1,3-diisocyanate
production, alkyd resins production, polyester resins production,
polyvinyl alcohol production, polyvinyl acetate emulsions production,
polyvinyl butyral production, polymerized vinylidene chloride
production, polymethyl methacrylate production, maleic
[[Page 69185]]
anhydride copolymers production, or any other organic chemical
processes not covered by another MACT standard. Many of these organic
chemical processes involve similar process equipment, similar emission
points and control equipment, and are in many cases co-located with
other source categories. For more information about the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category, see section II.B of
this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Organic Miscellaneous 3251, 3252, 3253,
Chemical Manufacturing. Organic Chemical 3254, 3255, 3256,
Manufacturing. and 3259, with
several exceptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-organic-chemical-manufacturing-national-emission. 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 is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746).
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 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 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
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 (D.C. 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
[[Page 69186]]
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 current NESHAP, herein called the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (MON) for the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category was promulgated on November 10,
2003 (68 FR 63852), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. As
promulgated in 2003, and further amended on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38562),
and July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40316), the MON regulates HAP emissions from
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units (MCPUs)
located at major sources. An MCPU includes a miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing process, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2550(i), and
must meet the following criteria: (1) It manufactures any material or
family of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1); it processes,
uses, or generates any of the organic HAP described in 40 CFR
63.2435(b)(2); and, except for certain process vents that are part of a
chemical manufacturing process unit, as identified in 40 CFR
63.100(j)(4), the MCPU is not an affected source or part of an affected
source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. An MCPU also includes
any assigned storage tanks and transfer racks; equipment in open
systems that is used to convey or store water having the same
concentration and flow characteristics as wastewater; and components
such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves,
connectors, and instrumentation systems that are used to manufacture
any material or family of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1).
Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the MON include the following:
process vents, storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks,
wastewater streams, and heat exchange systems.
As of November 6, 2018, the EPA identified 201 miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing facilities in operation and subject to
the MON standards, herein referred to as ``MON facilities'', using
methods described in section II.C of this preamble. A complete list of
known MON facilities is available in Appendix 1 of the document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA used several sources to develop the list of existing MON
facilities. All facilities in the 2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) and the 2014 Toxics Release Inventory with a primary facility
NAICS code beginning with 325, representing the chemical manufacturing
sector, were queried to create a comprehensive base facility list. The
list was also supplemented using the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's (OECA) Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) tool (https://echo.epa.gov) and chemical sector facility lists
provided internally from the EPA's records. This starting chemical
manufacturing sector facility list included over 5,000 unique
facilities, 201 of which we found to be subject to the MON.
To determine which facilities on the comprehensive chemical
manufacturing sector facility list were subject to the MON, title V air
permits were obtained from each state's online database. In cases where
the online database was incomplete, the Region and/or state was
contacted for help in obtaining the air permits, and internet searches
were performed to determine the status of the facility (e.g., open,
permanently closed, sold, etc.). The list was also shared with the
American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the American Coatings Association
(ACA) for voluntary input on rule applicability. This review and
analysis produced the final facility list of 201 MON facilities. For
MON facilities that reported emissions of ethylene oxide, we not only
reviewed the air permit, but we also contacted facilities to verify
process and operating information.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As discussed in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, we
specifically address ethylene oxide emissions from storage tanks,
process vents, and equipment leaks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2018, the EPA issued a request, pursuant to CAA section
114, to gather information about process equipment, control
technologies, and emissions, and requested performance testing for
certain pollutants for one MCPU source emitting ethylene oxide. The
facility completed the survey and submitted responses (and follow-up
responses) to the EPA between January 2019 and February 2019. The
results of the performance testing were received on September 3, 2019,
and, therefore, were not included in the risk analysis. The Agency has
made the results publicly available in the docket for this rulemaking
to provide the public with an opportunity to review the data before
promulgation of the rule. Before final promulgation of this rulemaking,
the EPA intends to use the collected information to assist the Agency
in filling data gaps, establishing the baseline emissions and control
levels for purposes of the regulatory reviews, identifying the most
effective control measures, and estimating the environmental impacts
associated with the regulatory options considered and reflected in this
proposed action. The information not claimed as CBI by respondents and
received in time to be included in this proposal is available in
[[Page 69187]]
the memorandum titled Data Received from Information Collection Request
for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
We are relying on technical reports and memoranda that the EPA
developed for flares used as air pollution control devices in the
Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR and New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015). These technical reports and
memoranda can be found in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR and NSPS
rulemaking docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. The Petroleum
Refinery Sector docket contains several flare-related technical reports
and memoranda documenting numerous analyses the EPA conducted to
develop the final suite of operational and monitoring requirements for
refinery flares. For completeness of the rulemaking record for this
action and ease of reference in finding these items in the publicly
available refinery sector rulemaking docket, we are including a list of
the most relevant technical support documents in Table 1 of the
memorandum titled Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In addition, the EPA is incorporating into the docket for this
rulemaking materials associated with a number of site-specific
alternative means of emission limitation (AMEL) requests for facilities
electing to use multi-point ground flares (MPGF) as an APCD. These
site-specific AMEL requests for MPGF have been approved by the EPA
because the MPGF can achieve at least equivalent reductions in
emissions to the underlying flare operational standards in various
NESHAP and/or NSPS. The EPA receives these AMEL requests because MPGFs
are designed to operate above the current maximum permitted velocity
requirements for flares in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b).
Given that the EPA has provided notice and sought comment on certain
specific AMEL requests, the underlying AMEL requests submitted by
industry, MPGF test data, technical memorandums, Federal Register
documents \3\ and other supporting and related material that formed the
basis of the AMEL requests and approved alternative operating
conditions have been placed in a publicly available docket at Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738. We consider all items in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0738 part of our rulemaking record as well, given that this
docket is specific to MPGF AMEL requests. We are, therefore,
referencing the materials in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738 for
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 80 FR 8023, February 13, 2015; 80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015;
81 FR 23480, April 21, 2016; 82 FR 16392, April 4, 2017; 82 FR
27822, June 19, 2017; and 83 FR 18034, April 25, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also relying on data gathered to support the RTR for
ethylene production processes, as well as memoranda documenting the
technology review for those processes. Many of the emission sources for
ethylene production facilities are similar to MON facilities, and
several of the control options analyzed for the MON were also analyzed
for the Ethylene Production RTR. The memoranda and background technical
information can be found in the Ethylene Production RTR rulemaking
docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0357.
Furthermore, the risk assessment presented here relies on the use
of the 2016 updated ethylene oxide unit risk estimate (URE) for
regulatory purposes. The EPA previously requested comment on the use of
this URE in the Hydrochloric Acid Production RTR proposed rule (84 FR
1584, February 4, 2019), the comment period for which closed on April
26, 2019. The Agency received a number of comments on the use of the
updated ethylene oxide URE. However, ethylene oxide is not emitted by
the Hydrochloric Acid Production source category but is emitted by the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category.
Therefore, the EPA is incorporating these comments into the docket for
this rulemaking from Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0417 and, along with
comments received on this proposal, will address all comments in the
response to comments document of this final rulemaking. Note that all
comments received in the Hydrochloric Acid Production RTR proposal were
at least partially related to risks from ethylene oxide, and,
therefore, we are incorporating all comments from that rulemaking into
the docket for this action. (Note, additional discussion on the use of
the 2016 updated URE for ethylene oxide for this regulatory action is
provided in section IV.C.3 in this preamble.)
Lastly, the EPA is incorporating into the docket for this
rulemaking all materials associated with the development of the current
MON standards from Docket ID No. A-96-04 and Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0121. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the
EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. 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.
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?
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
[[Page 69188]]
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 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 category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
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
Methods 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
[[Page 69189]]
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
(or last updated) 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.B 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 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 eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing 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?
The MON facility list was developed as described in section II.C of
this preamble and consists of 201 facilities. The emissions modeling
input files were developed using the EPA's 2014 NEI. Two modeling input
files were developed, one that contains the whole facility emissions
and one that contains only emissions from MON processes, or the source
category. For the 201 MON facilities, only 197 had reported HAP
emissions in the 2014 NEI. Of the four facilities without HAP
emissions, two had reported no HAP data to the 2014 NEI and two had no
Emissions Inventory System (EIS) ID and, therefore, no emissions data
to pull from the NEI. Of the 197 facilities with reported HAP
emissions, three facilities did not report any HAP emissions that could
be identified as attributed to MON processes and, therefore, emissions
data for these three facilities could not be modeled. Therefore, due to
lack of available data, source category risk modeling was not conducted
for seven of the 201 MON facilities, which could potentially result in
an underestimation of risk for the source category. The complete MON
facility list is available in Appendix 1 of the document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
The EPA created the whole facility modeling file using all HAP
emissions records from the 2014 NEI for the list of 197 EIS IDs which
had available HAP data. The NEI data were also used to develop the
other parameters needed to perform the risk modeling analysis,
including the emissions release characteristics, such as stack heights,
stack diameters, flow rates, temperatures, and emission release point
locations.
The EPA then created the source category modeling input file by
identifying the specific NEI emissions records in the whole facility
modeling input file that are subject to the MON by reviewing the
facilities' title V air permits, unit source classification code (SCC),
emission unit descriptions, and process descriptions. The EPA also used
SCC codes, emission unit descriptions, and process descriptions to
identify units that are not subject to the MON (e.g., boilers, engines,
etc.) and removed them from the source category modeling file. In
general, ambiguous NEI records were assumed to be subject to the MON to
be conservatively inclusive, with the intention of verifying the rule
applicability later if the risk analysis revealed these unit emissions
to be risk drivers for the source category. As mentioned previously, of
the 197 facilities with reported HAP emissions at the whole facility
level, three facilities did not report any HAP emissions that could be
identified as attributed to MON processes and, therefore, emissions
data for 194 facilities was included in the source category modeling
file. After determining which NEI records were subject to the MON, the
record was assigned to an emission process group, identified in Table
2.
Table 2--Emission Process Groups Related to the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission process group
Emission process group abbreviation \1\ description \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV........................................ Process Vent.
ST........................................ Storage Tank.
TR........................................ Transfer Operation.
HE........................................ Heat Exchange System.
EL........................................ Equipment Leak.
WS........................................ Wastewater.
FL........................................ Flare.
IN \2\.................................... Potential MON Process
Group.\2\
UK \3\.................................... Unknown Process Group.\3\
OT \4\.................................... Non-MON Process Group.\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sometimes the record includes co-mingled emissions from more than
one emission process group due to a shared control device.
[[Page 69190]]
\2\ These are emission records at the facility from sources that may
potentially be subject to the MON, based on their SCC code, emission
unit description, or process description, but could not be verified
due to lack of available information.
\3\ These are emission records at the facility from sources that are
subject to the MON but lack specific details in the NEI record to
allow identification of an appropriate emission process group.
\4\ These are emission records at the facility from sources that are not
subject to the MON. Therefore, this emission process group will only
appear in the whole facility modeling file, and not in the source
category modeling file.
The RTR emissions dataset was refined following an extensive
quality assurance check of source locations, emission release point
parameters, and annual emission estimates. The EPA reviewed the
locations of emission release points at each facility and revised each
record as needed to ensure that all release points were located within
the fenceline of the facility. If an emission release point was located
outside of the facility fenceline or on an obviously incorrect location
within the fenceline (e.g., parking lot, lake, etc.) then the emission
release point was re-located to either the true location of the
equipment, if known, or the approximate center of the facility.
The emission release point parameters for stacks in the modeling
input files include stack height, exit gas temperature, stack diameter,
exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate. If emission release point
parameters were outside of typical quality assurance range checks or
missing, then the air permit was used to try and determine the
permitted value. If this information could not be found within the air
permit, then a surrogate value was assigned based on either the NAICS
code, the regulatory code, or the SCC. In some cases, missing emission
release point parameters were calculated using other parameters within
the modeling input file. For example, missing exit gas flow rates were
calculated using reported diameter and velocity.
Additionally, the EPA compared the emission release point type
(i.e., fugitive, stack) to the emission unit and process descriptions
for the modeling file records. In cases where information was
conflicting (i.e., equipment leaks being modeled as a vertical stack,
or process vent emissions being modeled as a fugitive area), we updated
the emission release point type to the appropriate category and
supplemented the appropriate emission release parameters using either
permitted values, when available, or defaulted values.
In some cases, the EPA coordinated with Regional offices, state
agencies, and/or industry on a specific emission record if it was
unknown whether the emissions belonged to a MON process and preliminary
risk analysis indicated that this pollutant might be a risk driver.
This specific inquiry was done to ensure that only MON emissions were
included in the source category modeling file. To further improve the
quality of the modeling file, in September 2017, the EPA provided
member companies of ACC and ACA with the emissions modeling input
records. The emissions records were also sent directly to several
companies. This allowed companies the opportunity to review and revise
emission values, emission release point parameters, and coordinates, as
needed. Any changes received between September 2017 and November 2018
were incorporated into the RTR modeling file. Changes received after
November 2018 will be considered for incorporation in the final rule. A
list of responses received from the Regional offices, state agencies,
and chemical companies can be found in Appendix 1 of the document
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking. This memorandum provides a description of the
information received, the file name of the response received, and
details on how the information was used to supplement the modeling
file. This memorandum also provides records of all changes made to the
source category and whole facility modeling input files throughout the
quality assurance and quality control process, and additional details
on the data and methods used to develop actual emissions estimates for
the risk modeling, including the EPA's quality assurance review.
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.)
For this analysis, we have determined that the actual emissions
data are reasonable estimates of the MACT-allowable emissions levels
for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category.
The ability to estimate MACT-allowable emissions from the actual
emissions dataset is largely dependent on the format of the standard
for a given emissions source as well as the types of controls employed
for the source. For further details on the assumptions and
methodologies used to estimate MACT-allowable emissions, see Appendix 1
of the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
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).\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.\8\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the
[[Page 69191]]
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 \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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).
\9\ 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 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 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 cancer
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 \10\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 chronic noncancer 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
[[Page 69192]]
environment,\11\ 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 Residual Risk
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for
Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in
RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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,\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in
Appendix 5 of the report: 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.'' \13\ 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 represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\14\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.
\14\ 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.'' \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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).
For the acute inhalation risk assessment of the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category, we used process level-
specific acute emissions multipliers, ranging from a factor of 2 to 10.
In general, hourly emissions estimates were based on peak-to-mean
ratios for 37 emission process groups, with emissions from transfer
racks and other emission process groups where sufficient information
did not exist to adequately assess peak hourly emissions (e.g., flares
controlling various unknown emissions sources) having the highest
hourly peak emissions at a factor of 10 times the annual average. A
further discussion of why these factors were selected can be found in
Appendix 1 of the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
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
[[Page 69193]]
HAP. 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. For this source category, the data refinements
employed consisted of ensuring 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 Organic Chemical
Manufacturing 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 category 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 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source
category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of polycyclic organic matter
(POM) (of which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset), lead
compounds, mercury compounds, cadmium compounds, and arsenic 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 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'' (SV).
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 SV is greater than 1), we conduct a second
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 \16\) and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \17\). If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 SV 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\17\ 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.\18\ Values below the level of the
[[Page 69194]]
primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low
potential for multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering
the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control
options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission
reductions are applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the
RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and
incremental risk reductions.
6. 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 hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (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 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 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 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For
the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category, we
identified emissions of POM, lead compounds, mercury compounds, cadmium
compounds, arsenic compounds, HCl, and HF. 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.
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
[[Page 69195]]
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 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
SV 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 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
7. 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 flagged within the dataset, as described in
section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action? Quality assurance and quality control
was performed on the whole facility dataset, which included the flagged
source category records. 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
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 Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 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.
8. 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 dataset, 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 Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
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 Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset 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. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally 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
[[Page 69196]]
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'' (the 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.\19\
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 low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\20\
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,\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\20\ 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.
\21\ 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 this 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
[[Page 69197]]
qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs
the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP
reductions achieved by various control options.
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 emission 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. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time,
making these assumptions conservative. 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 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.
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
[[Page 69198]]
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 actions are we taking in addition to those identified in the
risk and technology review?
In addition to the proposed actions on the risk review and
technology review discussed further in this section, we are proposing
the following: (1) Adding monitoring and operational requirements for
flares that control ethylene oxide emissions and flares used to control
emissions from processes that produce olefins and polyolefins, with the
option for an owner or operator of a flare outside of this subset to
choose to opt in to the proposed requirements in lieu of complying with
the current flare standards, and (2) consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), ensuring that CAA section 112
standards apply continuously by proposing work practice standards for
periods of SSM for certain vent streams (i.e., PRD releases and
maintenance vents), and proposing clarifications for vent control
bypasses for certain vent streams (i.e., closed vent systems containing
bypass lines, and flares connected to fuel gas systems). The results
and proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3) are presented below.
1. Flares
The EPA is proposing under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to amend
the operating and monitoring requirements for a subset of flares used
as APCDs in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source
category because we have determined that the current requirements for
flares in this subset are not adequate to ensure the level of
destruction efficiency needed to conform with the MACT standards in the
MON. This subset includes flares that either (1) control ethylene oxide
emissions, (2) control emissions from processes that produce olefins,
or (3) control emissions from processes that produce polyolefins.
Flares falling into one of these categories are referred to as the
flare ``subset'' in this preamble, and for clarification, it is our
intention that, as part of this proposal, flares controlling propane
dehydrogenation (PDH) processes be included in this flare subset since
the PDH process produces olefins such as propylene. The EPA is also
proposing that, for flares outside of this subset, an owner or operator
may choose to comply with the updated standards in lieu of complying
with the current flare standards. Therefore, all proposed flare
standards in section IV.A.1 of this preamble are intended to apply to
only the specified flare subset and to flares at MON facilities where
the owner or operator has chosen to opt in to the proposed standards.
Flares outside of this subset, or at MON facilities where the owner or
operator has chosen not to opt in to the proposed standards, will be
subject to the current provisions for flares in the MON standard.
The specified flare subset was selected on the basis that the
current requirements for flares may be inadequate to ensure the level
of destruction efficiency needed to conform with the MACT standards in
the MON. Flares are commonly used within the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category. The requirements applicable to
flares, which are used to control emissions from various emission
sources in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source
category (e.g., process vents, storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment
leaks, wastewater streams), are set forth in the General Provisions to
40 CFR part 63 and are cross-referenced in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G
(for wastewater), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (for process vents,
storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leaks). In general, flares
used as APCDs are expected to achieve 98-percent HAP destruction
efficiencies when designed and operated according to the requirements
in the General Provisions. Studies on flare performance,\23\ however,
indicate that these General Provision requirements are inadequate to
ensure proper performance of flares at refineries and other
petrochemical facilities (including chemical manufacturing facilities),
particularly when either assist steam or assist air is used. In
addition, over the last decade, flare minimization efforts at these
facilities have led to an increasing number of flares operating at well
below their design capacity, and while these efforts have resulted in
reduced flaring of gases, situations of over assisting with either
steam or air have become exacerbated, leading to the degradation of
flare combustion efficiency. Several flares located at MON facilities
control vent streams containing olefins. These MON facilities operate
directly downstream from refineries and other petrochemical plants
(e.g., ethylene production plants) and, consequently, likely burn
similar types of waste gas constituents to a refinery or petrochemical
plant (e.g., olefins and hydrogen). Given that flares at petrochemical
plants (including facilities that produce olefins) were also included
in the flare dataset that formed the underlying basis of the new
standards for refinery flares, we believe that it is appropriate to
apply the finalized suite of operational and monitoring requirements
for refinery flares to those flares in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category that control emissions from
processes that produce olefins and/or polyolefins. Additionally, we
included flares controlling ethylene oxide emissions within this subset
to ensure that these flares will achieve high combustion efficiency,
which is necessary as small quantities of ethylene oxide emissions can
present significant cancer risks to surrounding communities. Additional
discussion on this proposed control option is presented in section
IV.C.2 of this preamble, which proposes that process vents and storage
tanks in ethylene oxide service either use a control device achieving
99.9-percent emissions reductions, control emissions using a non-flare
control device that reduces ethylene oxide to less than 1 part per
million by volume (ppmv) or (for process vents only) less than 5 pounds
per year for all combined process vents, or control emissions using a
flare that meets the proposed flare standards presented in this
section. Therefore, these proposed amendments will ensure that
continuous compliance with the CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)
standards is achieved for MON facilities that use flares that control
ethylene oxide emissions and/or flares used to control emissions from
MCPUs that produce olefins and/or polyolefins. We solicit comments and
data on the application of these standards to the proposed flare
subset, the option for an owner or operator to choose to opt in to the
proposed flare standards for flares outside of this subset in lieu of
[[Page 69199]]
complying with the current flare standards, and the need to apply these
standards more broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For a list of studies, refer to the technical report titled
Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, in Docket ID
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Provisions of 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that flares be:
(1) Steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted; (2) operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and
operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a
total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours); and (4) operated
with the presence of a pilot flame at all times. These General
Provisions also specify both the minimum heat content of gas combusted
in the flare and maximum exit velocity at the flare tip. The General
Provisions specify monitoring for the presence of the pilot flame and
the operation of a flare with no visible emissions. For other operating
limits, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, includes an initial flare
compliance assessment to demonstrate compliance but specifies no
monitoring requirements to ensure continuous compliance. We are
proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF (Table 12), entries for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) and 40 CFR 63.11
such that these provisions do not apply to flares in the specified
subset, because we are proposing to replace these provisions with new
standards we are proposing for flares in the specified subset. We are
also proposing at 40 CFR 63.2535(m) to clarify that owners or operators
of flares that are not considered to be in the specified subset but are
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11 may elect to comply
with the new proposed flare standards in lieu of the provisions of 40
CFR 60.18 or 63.11.
In 2012, the EPA compiled information and test data collected on
flares and summarized its preliminary findings on operating parameters
that affect flare combustion efficiency in a technical report titled
Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, in Docket ID Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191.\24\ The EPA submitted this report, along
with a charge statement and a set of charge questions, to an external
peer review panel.\25\ The panel, consisting of individuals
representing a variety of backgrounds and perspectives (i.e., industry,
academia, environmental experts, and industrial flare consultants),
concurred with the EPA's assessment that the following three primary
factors affect flare performance: (1) The flow of the vent gas to the
flare; (2) the amount of assist media (e.g., steam or air) added to the
flare; and (3) the combustibility of the vent gas/assist media mixture
in the combustion zone (i.e., the net heating value, lower
flammability, and/or combustibles concentration) at the flare tip.
However, in response to peer review comments, the EPA performed a
validation and usability analysis on all available test data as well as
a failure analysis on potential parameters discussed in the technical
report as indicators of flare performance. The peer review comments are
in the memorandum titled Peer Review of Parameters for Properly
Designed and Operated Flares, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682-0193, which has been incorporated into the docket for
this rulemaking. These analyses resulted in a change to the population
of test data that the EPA used and helped form the basis for the flare
operating limits promulgated in the 2015 Petroleum Refinery Sector MACT
final rule at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (80 FR 75178).\26\ We are also
relying on the same analyses and proposing the same operating limits
for flares in the specified subset used as APCDs in the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category. The Agency believes,
given the results from the various data analyses conducted for the
Petroleum Refinery Sector MACT rule, that the operating limits
promulgated for flares used in the petroleum refinery sector are also
appropriate and reasonable for flares in the specified subset, and will
ensure that flares in the specified subset meet the HAP removal
efficiency at all times. Therefore, we are proposing at 40 CFR
63.2450(e)(5) to directly apply the Petroleum Refinery Sector MACT rule
flare definitions and requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, to
flares in the specified subset in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category with certain clarifications and
exemptions discussed in this section of the preamble, including, but
not limited to, specifying that several definitions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC, that apply to petroleum refinery flares also apply to
flares in the specified subset in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category, adding a definition and requirements for
pressure-assisted multi-point flares, and specifying additional
requirements when a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer is used for
compositional analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See section II.D of this preamble, which addresses the
incorporation by reference of certain docket files such as this one
into the docket for this rulemaking.
\25\ These documents can also be found at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/review-peer-review-parameters-properly-designed-and-operated-flares.
\26\ See technical memorandum titled Flare Performance Data:
Summary of Peer Review Comments and Additional Data Analysis for
Steam-Assisted Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0200 for a more detailed discussion of the data quality and
analysis; the technical memorandum titled Petroleum Refinery Sector
Rule: Operating Limits for Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682-0206 for a more detailed discussion of the failure
analysis and the technical memorandum titled Flare Control Option
Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0748 for additional analyses on flare performance
standards based on public comments received on the proposed
Petroleum Refinery Sector rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section of the preamble includes a discussion
of requirements that we are proposing for flares in the specified
subset used as APCDs in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category, along with impacts and costs associated
with these proposed revisions. Specifically, this action proposes that
flares in the specified subset operate pilot flame systems continuously
and that flares operate with no visible emissions (except for periods
not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours) when
the flare vent gas flow rate is below the smokeless capacity of the
flare. In addition, this action proposes to consolidate measures
related to flare tip velocity and proposes new operational and
monitoring requirements related to the combustion zone gas. Further, in
keeping with the elimination of the SSM exemption as discussed in
section IV.E.1 of this preamble, this action proposes a work practice
standard related to the visible emissions and velocity limits during
periods when the flare is operated above its smokeless capacity (e.g.,
periods of emergency flaring). Currently, the MACT standards in the MON
cross-reference the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b) for the
operational requirements for flares used as APCD (through reference of
40 CFR part 63, subparts G and SS). This proposal eliminates cross-
references to the General Provisions and instead specifies all new
operational and monitoring requirements that are intended to apply to
flares in the specified subset used as APCDs in the MON standards.
a. Pilot Flames
The MON references the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b)
(through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF), which
specify that a flare used as an APCD should operate with a pilot flame
present at all times. Pilot flames are proven to improve flare flame
stability, and even short durations of an extinguished pilot could
cause a
[[Page 69200]]
significant reduction in flare destruction efficiency. In this
proposal, we are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General
Provisions for flares in the specified subset only and instead cross-
reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, to include in the MON the
existing provision that flares operate with a pilot flame at all times
and be continuously monitored for a pilot flame using a thermocouple or
any other equivalent device. We are also proposing to add a continuous
compliance measure for flares in the specified subset that would
consider each 15-minute block when there is at least 1 minute where no
pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to the flare
as a deviation from the standard. Refer to 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5) and 40
CFR 63.670(b) and (g) for these proposed requirements. See section
IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15-
minute block averaging period for determining continuous compliance. We
solicit comment on the proposed revisions for flare pilot flames.
b. Visible Emissions
The MON references 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and Table 12 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF), which specifies that a flare used as an APCD
should operate with visible emissions for no more than 5 minutes in a
2-hour period. Owners or operators of these flares are required to
conduct an initial performance demonstration for visible emissions
using EPA Method 22 of Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 (``Method 22'').
We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General
Provisions for flares in the specified subset and instead cross-
reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, to include the limitation on
visible emissions. We are also proposing to clarify that the initial 2-
hour visible emissions demonstration should be conducted the first time
regulated materials are routed to the flare.
With regard to continuous compliance with the visible emissions
limitation, we are proposing daily visible emissions monitoring for
flares in the specified subset for whenever regulated material is
routed to the flare and also visible emissions monitoring for whenever
visible emissions are observed from the flare. On days that the flare
receives regulated material, we are proposing that owners or operators
of flares in the specified subset monitor visible emissions at a
minimum of once per day while the flare is receiving regulated material
using an observation period of 5 minutes and Method 22. Additionally,
whenever regulated material is routed to a flare in the specified
subset and there are visual emissions from the flare, we are proposing
that another 5-minute visible emissions observation period be performed
using Method 22, even if the minimum required daily visible emission
monitoring has already been performed. For example, if an employee
observes visible emissions, the owner or operator of the flare would
perform a 5-minute Method 22 observation to check for compliance upon
initial observation or notification of such event. In addition, in lieu
of daily visible emissions observations performed using Method 22, we
are proposing that owners and operators be allowed to use video
surveillance cameras. We believe that video surveillance cameras would
be at least as effective as the proposed daily 5-minute visible
emissions observations using Method 22.
We are also proposing to extend the observation period for a flare
in the specified subset to 2 hours whenever visible emissions are
observed for greater than 1 continuous minute during any of the 5-
minute observation periods. Refer to 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5) and 40 CFR
63.670(c) and (h) for these proposed requirements. We acknowledge that
operating a flare near the incipient smoke point (the point at which
black smoke begins to form within the flame) results in good combustion
at the flare tip; however, smoking flares can contribute significantly
to emissions of particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter
or smaller. Thus, while increasing the allowable period for visible
emissions may be useful from an operational perspective, we do not
believe the allowable period for visible emissions should be increased
to more than 5 minutes in any 2-hour period. We solicit comment on the
proposed allowable period for visible emissions from flares.
As discussed later in this section, we are proposing additional
operational and monitoring requirements for flares in the specified
subset that we expect will result in owners or operators of MCPUs
installing equipment that can be used to fine-tune and control the
amount of assist steam or air introduced at the flare tip such that
combustion efficiency of the flare will be maximized. These monitoring
and control systems will assist these flare owners or operators to
operate near the incipient smoke point without exceeding the visible
emissions limit. While combustion efficiency may be highest at the
incipient smoke point, it is not significantly higher than the
combustion efficiency achieved by the proposed operating limits
discussed in section IV.A.1.d of this preamble. As seen in the
performance curves for flares, there is very limited improvement in
flare performance beyond the performance achieved at the proposed
operating limits (see technical memorandum titled Petroleum Refinery
Sector Rule: Operating Limits for Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682-0206, which has been incorporated into the docket for
this rulemaking). We solicit comments and data on appropriate periods
of visible emissions that would encourage operation at the incipient
smoke point.
In addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator establish
the smokeless capacity of each flare in the specified subset based on
design specification of the flare, and that the visible emissions
limitation only apply when the flare vent gas flow rate is below its
smokeless capacity. We are proposing a work practice standard for the
limited times (i.e., during emergency releases) when the flow to a
flare in the specified subset exceeds the smokeless capacity of the
flare, based on comments the EPA received on the proposed Petroleum
Refinery Sector rule. Refer to 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5) and 40 CFR
63.670(o) for these proposed provisions. In the Petroleum Refinery
Sector final rule, the EPA explained that numerous comments on the
proposal suggested that flares are not designed to meet the visible
emissions requirements when operated beyond their smokeless capacity
(80 FR 75178). According to commenters, flares are typically designed
to operate in a smokeless manner at 20 to 30 percent of full hydraulic
load. Thus, they claimed, flares have two different design capacities:
A ``smokeless capacity'' to handle normal operations and typical
process variations and a ``hydraulic load capacity'' to handle very
large volumes of gases discharged to the flare as a result of an
emergency shutdown. According to commenters, this is inherent in all
flare designs and has not previously been an issue because flare
operating limits did not apply during malfunction events.
For this proposed work practice standard, owners or operators would
need to develop a flare management plan for flares in the specified
subset that identifies procedures for limiting discharges to the flare
as a result of process upsets or malfunctions that cause the flare to
exceed its smokeless capacity. In addition, for any flare in the
specified subset that exceeds both the smokeless design capacity and
visible emissions limit, we are proposing that owners or operators
would need to conduct a specific root cause analysis
[[Page 69201]]
and take corrective action to prevent the recurrence of a similarly
caused event (similar to the prevention measures we are proposing in
this rule to minimize the likelihood of a PRD release, see section
IV.A.2.a of this preamble). We are proposing that if the root cause
analysis indicates that the exceedance of the visible emissions limit
is caused by operator error or poor maintenance, then the exceedance
would be considered a deviation from the work practice standard. We are
also proposing that a second event within a rolling 3-year period from
the same root cause on the same equipment would be considered a
deviation from the standard. Further, we are proposing that events
caused by force majeure would be excluded from a determination of
whether there has been a second event. Finally, and again excluding
force majeure events, we are proposing that a third visible emissions
limit exceedance occurring from the same flare in a rolling 3-year
period would be a deviation from the work practice standard, regardless
of the cause. We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2550(i) to define a force
majeure event as a release of HAP, either directly to the atmosphere
from a PRD or discharged via a flare, that is demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Administrator to result from an event beyond the
owner or operator's control, such as natural disasters; acts of war or
terrorism; loss of a utility external to the MCPU (e.g., external power
curtailment), excluding power curtailment due to an interruptible
service agreement; and fire or explosion originating at a near or
adjoining facility outside of the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process unit that impacts the MCPU's ability to operate.
With regard to the proposed rolling 3-year period for assessing a
deviation of the work practice standard, the EPA evaluated the impacts
of different frequencies and time periods to the number of events that
would be the ``backstop'' (i.e., a deviation of the standard) to ensure
that corrective actions are meaningfully applied (see the memorandum,
Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking). The EPA assumed that the best performers
would have no more than one event every 7 years, or a probability of
14.3 percent of having an event in any given year. The EPA found that,
over a long period of time such as 20 years, about half of these best
performers would have two events in a 3-year period, which would still
result in about half of the ``best performing'' flares having a
deviation from the work practice standard if it was limited to two
events in 3 years. Conversely, the EPA found that over a long time
period such as 20 years, only 6 percent of the best performing flares
would have three events in 3 years over this same time horizon. Based
on this analysis, three events in 3 years would appear to be
``achievable'' for the average of the best performing flares.
c. Flare Tip Velocity
This action consolidates provisions related to flare tip velocity
for flares in the specified subset. The MON references the flare
provisions in 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF), which specify maximum flare tip velocities based on
flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted, or air-assisted) and the net
heating value of the flare vent gas. For MON facilities using flares as
APCDs, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of these flares
are either steam- or air-assisted (see the memorandum, Control Option
Impacts for Flares Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking). These maximum flare tip velocities are required to
ensure that the flame does not ``lift off'' the flare (i.e., a
condition where a flame separates from the tip of the flare and there
is space between the flare tip and the bottom of the flame), which
could cause flame instability and/or potentially result in a portion of
the flare gas being released without proper combustion. We are
proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General Provisions for
flares in the specified subset and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part
63, subpart CC, to consolidate the provisions for maximum flare tip
velocity into the MON as a single equation, irrespective of flare type
(i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted). Refer to 40 CFR
63.2450(e)(5) and 40 CFR 63.670(d), (i), and (k) for these proposed
provisions.
Based on analysis conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector final
rule, the EPA identified air-assisted test runs with high flare tip
velocities that had high combustion efficiencies (see technical
memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Evaluation of Flare Tip
Velocity Requirements, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0212). These test runs exceeded the maximum flare tip velocity limits
for air-assisted flares using the linear equation in 40 CFR
63.11(b)(8). When these test runs were compared with the test runs for
non-assisted and steam-assisted flares, air-assisted flares appeared to
have the same operating envelope as the non-assisted and steam-assisted
flares. Therefore, for air-assisted flares in the specified subset, we
are proposing the use of the same equation that non-assisted and steam-
assisted flares currently use to establish the flare tip velocity
operating limit. We are also proposing that the owner or operator
determine the flare tip velocity on a 15-minute block average basis.
See section IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing
to use a 15-minute block averaging period for determining continuous
compliance.
In addition, we are proposing the same work practice standard for
flare tip velocity during emergency releases (when the flow to the
flare exceeds the smokeless capacity of the flare) as we are proposing
for visible emissions for flares in the specified subset. Refer to 40
CFR 63.2450(e)(5) and 40 CFR 63.670(o) for these proposed provisions.
Specifically, instead of owners and operators meeting the flare tip
velocity operating limit at all times for flares in the specified
subset, we are proposing that the owner or operator establish the
smokeless capacity of each flare based on design specification of the
flare, and that the flare tip velocity operating limit would only apply
when the flare vent gas flow rate is below its smokeless capacity. We
are proposing a work practice standard for flares in the specified
subset for the limited times (i.e., during emergency releases) when the
flow to the flare exceeds the smokeless capacity of the flare, based on
comments the EPA received on the proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector
rule. In the Petroleum Refinery Sector final rule, the EPA explained
that numerous comments on the proposal suggested that flares are not
designed to meet the flare tip velocity requirements when being
operated beyond their smokeless capacity (80 FR 75178). According to
commenters, flares are commonly operated during emergency releases at
exit velocities greater than 400 feet per second (which is 270 miles
per hour), and this is inherent in all flare designs and has not
previously been an issue because flare operating limits did not apply
during malfunction events.
For the proposed work practice standard, owners or operators would
develop a flare management plan for flares in the specified subset
identifying procedures that they intend to follow in order to limit
discharges to the flare as
[[Page 69202]]
a result of process upsets or malfunctions that cause the flare to
exceed its flare tip velocity operating limit. In addition, we are
proposing that owners or operators would conduct a specific root cause
analysis for flares in the specified subset and take corrective action
to prevent the recurrence of a similarly caused event, similar to the
prevention measures we are proposing in this rule to minimize the
likelihood of a PRD release (see section IV.A.2.a of this preamble),
for any flare event above smokeless design capacity that also exceeds
the flare tip velocity operating limit. We are proposing that if the
root cause analysis indicates that the exceedance is caused by operator
error or poor maintenance, then the exceedance would be considered a
deviation from the work practice standard. We are also proposing that a
second event where the flare tip velocity operating limit is exceeded
within a rolling 3-year period from the same root cause on the same
equipment would be considered a deviation from the standard. Further,
we are proposing that events caused by force majeure (see section
IV.A.1.b of this preamble for a proposed definition of force majeure)
would be excluded from a determination of whether there has been a
second event. Finally, and again excluding force majeure events, we are
proposing that a third event where the flare tip velocity operating
limit is exceeded exceedance occurring from the same flare in a rolling
3-year period would be a deviation from the work practice standard,
regardless of the cause. As previously explained in section IV.A.1.b of
this preamble, we believe no more than three events in 3 years appear
to be ``achievable'' for the average of the best performing flares. We
solicit comment on the proposed work practice standard for flare tip
velocity during emergency releases (when the flow to the flare exceeds
the smokeless capacity of the flare).
Finally, we are also proposing not to include the provision for the
special flare tip velocity equation in the General Provisions at 40 CFR
63.11(b)(6)(i)(A) for non-assisted flares in the specified subset with
hydrogen content greater than 8 percent. This equation, which was
developed based on limited data from a chemical manufacturer, has very
limited applicability for flares used as APCDs in the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category because it only provides
an alternative for non-assisted flares with large quantities of
hydrogen. Available data indicates that approximately 90 percent of the
flares used at MON facilities are either steam-assisted or air-
assisted. Furthermore, we are proposing compliance alternatives that we
believe provide a better way for flares in the specified subset with
high hydrogen content to comply with the rule while ensuring proper
destruction performance of the flare (see section IV.A.3.d of this
preamble for the proposed compliance alternatives). Therefore, for non-
assisted flares in the specified subset with hydrogen content greater
than 8 percent that are used as ACPDs, we are not proposing to include
this special flare tip velocity equation as a compliance alternative.
We request comment on the need to include this equation.
d. Net Heating Value of the Combustion Zone Gas
The current provisions for flares in 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that
the flare vent gas meet a minimum net heating value of 200 British
thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) for non-assisted flares
and 300 Btu/scf for air- and steam-assisted flares. The MON references
these provisions (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF),
but neither the General Provisions nor the MON include specific
requirements for monitoring the net heating value of the flare vent
gas. Moreover, recent flare testing results indicate that the minimum
net heating value alone does not address instances when the flare may
be over-assisted because it only considers the gas being combusted in
the flare and nothing else (e.g., no assist media). However, many
industrial flares use steam or air as an assist medium to protect the
design of the flare tip, promote turbulence for the mixing, induce air
into the flame, and operate with no visible emissions. Using excessive
steam or air results in dilution and cooling of flared gases and can
lead to operating a flare outside its stable flame envelope, reducing
the destruction efficiency of the flare. In extreme cases, over-
steaming or excess aeration can snuff out a flame and allow regulated
material to be released into the atmosphere without complete
combustion. As previously noted, because available data indicate that
approximately 90 percent of all flares used as APCDs in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category are either
steam- or air-assisted, it is critical that we ensure the assist media
is accounted for in some form. Recent flare test data have shown that
the best way to account for situations of over-assisting is to consider
the gas mixture properties at the flare tip in the combustion zone when
evaluating the ability to combust efficiently. As discussed in the
introduction to this section, the external peer review panel concurred
with our assessment that the combustion zone properties at the flare
tip are critical parameters to know in determining whether a flare will
achieve good combustion. The General Provisions, however, solely rely
on the net heating value of the flare vent gas, and we have determined
that is not sufficient for the flares at issue.
In this proposal, in lieu of requiring compliance with the
operating limits for net heating value of the flare vent gas in the
General Provisions, we are proposing to cross-reference 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC, to include in the MON a single minimum operating limit for
the net heating value in the combustion zone gas (NHVcz) of 270 Btu/scf
during any 15-minute period for steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-
assisted flares in the specified subset. Refer to 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5)
and 40 CFR 63.670(e) and (m) for these proposed provisions. The Agency
believes, given the results from the various data analyses conducted
for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, that this NHVcz operating limit
promulgated for flares in the Petroleum Refinery Sector source category
is also appropriate and reasonable and will ensure flares in the
specified subset meet the HAP destruction efficiencies in the standard
at all times when operated in concert with the other proposed flare
provisions (e.g., pilot flame, visible emissions, and flare tip
velocity requirements) (see the memoranda titled Petroleum Refinery
Sector Rule: Operating Limits for Flares and Flare Control Option
Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682-0206 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0748, respectively). In
addition, we are proposing that owners or operators may use a corrected
heat content of 1,212 Btu/scf for hydrogen, instead of 274 Btu/scf, to
demonstrate compliance with the NHVcz operating limit for flares in the
specified subset; however, owners or operators who wish to use the
corrected hydrogen heat content must have a system capable of
monitoring for the hydrogen content in the flare vent gas. The 1,212
Btu/scf value is based on a comparison between the lower flammability
limit and net heating value of hydrogen compared to light organic
compounds and has been used in several consent decrees issued by the
EPA. Based on analyses conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule
(see the memorandum titled Flare Control Option Impacts for Final
Refinery Sector
[[Page 69203]]
Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0748), the EPA
determined that using a 1,212 Btu/scf value for hydrogen greatly
improves the correlation between combustion efficiency and the
combustion zone net heating value over the entire array of data.
Furthermore, in addition to the NHVcz operating limit, we are
proposing a net heating value dilution parameter (NHVdil) for certain
flares in the specified subset that operate with perimeter assist air.
Refer to 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5) and 40 CFR 63.670(f) and (n) for these
proposed provisions. For air-assisted flares, use of too much perimeter
assist air can lead to poor flare performance. Furthermore, based on
our analysis of the air-assisted flare datasets (see technical
memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating Limits for
Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0206), we determined
a NHVdil of 22 British thermal units per square foot is necessary to
ensure that there is enough combustible material available to
adequately combust the gas and pass through the flammability region and
also ensure that degradation of flare performance from excess aeration
does not occur. We found that including the flow rate of perimeter
assist air in the calculation of the NHVcz does not identify all
instances of excess aeration and could (in some instances) even allow
facilities to send very dilute vent gases to the flare that would not
combust (i.e., vent gases below their lower flammability limit could be
sent to flare). Instead, the data suggest that the diameter of the
flare tip, in concert with the amount of perimeter assist air (and
other parameters used to determine NHVcz), provides the inputs
necessary to calculate whether this type of flare is over-assisted.
This dilution parameter is consistent with the combustion theory that
the more time the gas spends in the flammability region above the flare
tip, the more likely it will combust. Also, because both the volume of
the combustion zone (represented by the diameter) and how quickly this
gas is diluted to a point below the flammability region (represented by
perimeter assist air flow rate) characterize this time, it is logical
that we propose such a parameter.
We also found that some assist steam lines are purposely designed
to entrain air into the lower or upper steam at the flare tip; and for
flare tips with an effective tip diameter of 9 inches or more, there
are no flare tip steam induction designs that can entrain enough assist
air to cause a flare operator to have a deviation from the NHVdil
operating limit without first deviating from the NHVcz operating limit.
Therefore, we are proposing to allow owners or operators of flares in
the specified subset whose only assist air is from perimeter assist air
entrained in lower and upper steam at the flare tip and with a flare
tip diameter of 9 inches or greater to comply only with the NHVcz
operating limit. Steam-assisted flares with perimeter assist air and an
effective tip diameter of less than 9 inches would remain subject to
the requirement to account for the amount of assist air intentionally
entrained within the calculation of NHVdil. However, we recognize that
this assist air cannot be directly measured, but the quantity of air
entrained is dependent on the assist steam rate and the design of the
steam tube's air entrainment system. Therefore, we are proposing
provisions to specify that owners or operators of these smaller
diameter steam-assisted flares in the specified subset use the steam
flow rate and the maximum design air-to-steam ratio of the steam tube's
air entrainment system for determining the flow rate of this assist
air. Using the maximum design ratio will tend to over-estimate the
assist air flow rate, which is conservative with respect to ensuring
compliance with the NHVdil operating limit.
Finally, we are proposing that owners or operators record and
calculate 15-minute block average values for these parameters. Our
rationale for selecting a 15-minute block averaging period is provided
in section IV.A.1.e of this preamble. We solicit comment on the
proposed revisions related to NHVcz.
e. Data Averaging Periods for Flare Gas Operating Limits
Except for the visible emissions operating limits as described in
section IV.A.1.b, we are proposing to use a 15-minute block averaging
period for each proposed flare operating parameter (i.e., presence of a
pilot flame, flare tip velocity, and NHVcz) to ensure that flares in
the specified subset are operated within the appropriate operating
conditions. We consider a short averaging time to be the most
appropriate for assessing proper flare performance because flare vent
gas flow rates and composition can change significantly over short
periods of time. Furthermore, because destruction efficiency can fall
precipitously when a flare is controlling vent gases below (or outside)
the proposed operating limits, short time periods where the operating
limits are not met could seriously impact the overall performance of
the flare. Refer to the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule preambles (79 FR
36880 and 80 FR 75178) for further details supporting why we believe a
15-minute averaging period is appropriate.
Given the short averaging times for the operating limits, we are
proposing special calculation methodologies to enable owners or
operators to use ``feed forward'' calculations to ensure compliance
with the operating limits on a 15-minute block average for flares in
the specified subset. Specifically, we propose using the results of the
compositional analysis determined just prior to a 15-minute block
period for the next 15-minute block average. Owners or operators of
flares in the specified subset will then know the vent gas properties
for the upcoming 15-minute block period and can adjust assist gas flow
rates relative to vent gas flow rates to comply with the proposed
operating limits. In other words, ``feed forward'' means that owners or
operators would use the net heating value in the vent gas (NHVvg) going
into the flare in one 15-minute period to adjust the assist media
(i.e., steam or air) and/or the supplemental gas in the next 15-minute
period, as necessary, to calculate an NHVcz limit of 270 Btu/scf or
greater using the proposed equation. We recognize that when a
subsequent measurement value is determined, the instantaneous NHVcz
based on that compositional analysis and the flow rates that exist at
the time may not be above 270 Btu/scf. We are proposing that this is
not a deviation from the operating limit. Rather, we propose that the
owner or operator is only required to make operational adjustments
based on that information to achieve, at a minimum, the net heating
value limit for the subsequent 15-minute block average. We are,
however, proposing that failure to make adjustments to assist media or
supplemental natural gas using the NHVvg from the previous period in
the equation provided for calculating an NHVcz limit of 270 Btu/scf,
would be a deviation from the operating limit. Alternatively, because
the owner or operator could directly measure the NHVvg on a more
frequent basis, such as with a calorimeter (and optional hydrogen
analyzer), the process control system is able to adjust more quickly,
and the owner or operator can make adjustments to assist media or
supplemental natural gas more quickly. In this manner, the owner or
operator is not limited by relying on NHVvg data that may not represent
the current conditions. We are, therefore, also proposing that the
owner or operator may opt to use the NHVvg in such instances from the
same period to comply with the operating limit. For
[[Page 69204]]
examples of ``feed forward'' calculations, please see Attachment 3 of
the memorandum titled Flare Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery
Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0748.
We are also proposing to clarify that when determining compliance
with the flare tip velocity and combustion zone operating limits
specified in 40 CFR 63.670(d) and (e), the initial 15-minute block
period starts with the 15-minute block that includes a full 15 minutes
of the flaring event. In other words, we are proposing to clarify that
the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the velocity and
NHVcz requirements starting with the block that contains the fifteenth
minute of a flaring event; and the owner or operator is not required to
demonstrate compliance for the previous 15-minute block in which the
event started and contained only a fraction of flow. We solicit comment
on these proposed revisions.
f. Flares in Dedicated Service
In lieu of requiring the composition of the vent gas and the NHVvg
to be continuously monitored, we are proposing an alternative
monitoring approach for flares in the specified subset that are in
dedicated service that have consistent composition and flow. We believe
that these types of flares, which have limited flare vent gas streams,
do not need to have the same type of ongoing monitoring requirements as
those with more variable waste streams. Thus, we are proposing an
option that owners or operators can use to demonstrate compliance with
the operating requirements for flares in the specified subset that are
in dedicated service to a specific emission source, such as a transfer
rack operation consistently loading the same material. We are proposing
that owners or operators will need to submit an application for the use
of this alternative compliance option. We are proposing that the
application include a description of the system, characterization of
the vent gases that could be routed to the flare based on a minimum of
seven grab samples (14 daily grab samples for continuously operated
flares), and specification of the net heating value that will be used
for all flaring events (based on the minimum net heating value of the
grab samples). In other words, for flares in the specified subset that
are in dedicated service, we are proposing that the minimum NHVvg
determined from the grab samples could be used in the equation at 40
CFR 63.670(m)(1) for all flaring events to determine NHVcz. We are also
proposing to allow engineering estimates to characterize the amount of
gas flared and the amount of assist gas introduced into the system. For
example, we believe that the use of fan curves to estimate air assist
rates would be acceptable. We propose that flare owners or operators
would use the net heating value determined from the initial sampling
phase and measured or estimated flare vent gas and assist gas flow
rates, if applicable, to demonstrate compliance with the standards.
Refer to 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5) and 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6) for these
proposed provisions. Finally, for owners and operators that must comply
with the continuous monitoring requirements, we are proposing
additional clarifications and requirements at 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5) when
using a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for compositional
analysis. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to
flares in dedicated service.
g. Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Flares
Pressure-assisted flares are conceptually similar, yet technically
different in both design and operation compared to more traditional
elevated flare tip designs (e.g., steam-assisted, air-assisted, and
non-assisted flare tips). Pressure-assisted flares operate by taking
advantage of the pressure upstream of the flare tip to create a
condition whereby air is drawn into contact and mixed with high exit
velocity flared gas, resulting in smokeless flare operation and
emissions reductions at least equivalent to those of traditional flares
types, if properly designed and operated. Pressure-assisted flares can
be used in a single flare burner type layout or in staged arrays with
many identical flare burners. These staged arrays can be elevated or at
ground level; however, we are only aware of ground level staged array
systems, that are commonly referred to as MPGF, at three facilities in
the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category that
emit ethylene oxide or produce olefins and/or polyolefins. Two of these
MPGFs are used solely as a secondary flare to control large emissions
events that result during periods of SSM. MPGFs have multiple (e.g.,
hundreds) flare burners at ground level. The flare burners in a MPGF
are designed with a staging system that opens and closes staging valves
according to gas pressure in the flare header such that the stages, and
accompanying flare burners for those stages, are activated to control
emissions as the flare vent gas flow and pressure increase in the flare
header, or are deactivated as the flare vent gas flow and pressure
decrease in the flare header. The flare burners in a MPGF are typically
lit with a pilot flame system where the first burners on a stage are
lit by the pilot flame and the flame propagates (i.e., cross-lights)
down the stage to the remaining burners on the stage (e.g., like how
burners on a gas grill would light). The MPGF system is surrounded by a
panel type fence to allow air in for combustion as well as to protect
nearby workers from the radiant heat of the flare system.
MPGF are often used as secondary flares to control large emissions
events that result during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the
SSM exemption (see section IV.E.1 of this preamble for additional
discussion), proposing requirements for this unique flare type for
flares in the specified subset is an important consideration given that
some facilities currently use them as APCD. Based on our review of
recently approved AMEL requests for MPGF and the underlying data
analyses that supported those decisions (see section II.D of this
preamble), MPGF can achieve at least equivalent reductions in volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and organic HAP to traditional elevated flares;
however, different operating requirements are needed for these flare
types to ensure a high level of control is achieved given that the
individual flare burners are designed to operate at high velocities
(i.e., up to sonic velocity). Important considerations for proper
design and operation of MPGF center around the following: (1) Flare
flame stability, (2) pilot flame presence and its interplay with proper
cross-lighting, (3) operation of the MPGF with no visible emissions,
and (4) monitoring of certain parameters of the MPGF and the vent gases
it controls for purposes of compliance assurance.
In reviewing the initial MPGF AMEL requests by Dow Chemical and
ExxonMobil (80 FR 8023-8030, February 13, 2015), the Agency noted two
general conclusions from the test data supporting the AMEL requests
that were consistent with 1985 studies \27\ conducted by the EPA on
pressure-assisted flares. The first general conclusion was that ``flare
head design can influence the flame stability curve.'' The second
general conclusion was that ``stable flare flames and high (>98-99
percent) combustion and destruction efficiencies are attained when
flares are operated within operating envelopes specific to each flare
burner and gas
[[Page 69205]]
mixture tested. Operation beyond the edge of the operating envelope can
result in rapid flame de-stabilization and a decrease in combustion and
destruction efficiencies.'' In reviewing all the available data in the
MPGF AMEL docket (i.e., Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738), we found
these two general observations were still valid conclusions. The data
clearly show that for some test runs flare flameouts occurred, meaning
the flares were not operated within the proper envelope to produce a
stable flame. In reviewing these data, we observed that all flare
flameouts occurred for the various burners/waste gas mixtures tested
below an NHVcz of 800 Btu/scf. Thus, we selected a minimum NHVcz of 800
Btu/scf to ensure the MPGF at facilities in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category that emit ethylene oxide or
produce olefins and/or polyolefins are operated within the proper
envelope to produce a stable flame and achieve high destruction
efficiencies at least equivalent to those as the underlying MON
standards. Above this level, no flare flameouts are observed, and high
combustion/destruction efficiencies at least equivalent to those as the
underlying MON MACT standards are achieved. Thus, to that end, we are
proposing to not allow use of the ``feed forward'' calculation approach
(discussed in section IV.A.1.e of this preamble) to demonstrate
compliance with the NHVcz limit of 800 Btu/scf. We are only proposing
allowance of complying with a straight 15-minute block average for
these flare types in the specified subset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Pohl, J. and N. Soelberg. 1985. Evaluation of the
efficiency of industrial flares: Flare head design and gas
composition. EPA-600/2-85-106. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another unique characteristic of MPGF is that they may use a cross-
lighting pilot flame system as a means of ignition to initially combust
the waste gases sent to the flare burners on a particular staged array.
Thus, we also reviewed the equipment-specific set-ups in the test data
that allowed for successful cross-lighting of MPGF. Based on review of
the data, it appears that one option would be for facilities to conduct
performance demonstrations to demonstrate successful cross-lighting on
a minimum of three burners (i.e., as outlined in the Framework for
Streamlining Approval of Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF AMEL Requests,
81 FR 23480, April 21, 2016). However, given the data before us in the
MPGF AMEL docket, and rather than requiring facilities to conduct a
performance demonstration, it appears that an equipment standard that
sets an upper limit on the distance between burners of 6 feet will
ensure a successful cross-lighting on a stage of burners in a MPGF.
Furthermore, in reviewing the site-specific AMEL standards that
facilities are complying with for MPGF,\28\ we believe these same site-
specific standards, if applied to all MPGF in the specified subset,
would demonstrate at least equivalent emissions reductions to the
underlying MON MACT standards as well as demonstrate at least
equivalent reductions to the new operational and monitoring
requirements we are proposing for more traditional, elevated flare
tips. Therefore, we are proposing that owners or operators of MPGF for
the specified flare subset (1) Maintain an NHVcz>=800 Btu/scf over a
short averaging period (i.e., 15-minutes); (2) continuously monitor the
NHVcz and flare vent gas flow rate; (3) continuously monitor for the
presence of a pilot flame, and if cross-lighting is occurring on a
particular stage of burners, ensuring that the stage has a minimum of
two pilots per stage that are capable of igniting all flare vent gases
sent to that stage; (4) operate the MPGF with no visible emissions
(except for 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours); (5) maintain a
distance of no greater than 6 feet between any two burners on a stage
of burners that use cross-lighting; and (6) monitor to ensure the
staging valves for each stage of the MPGF operate properly so that the
flare will control vent gases within the range of the tested conditions
based on the flare manufacturer's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015; 81 FR 23480, April 21, 2016;
and 82 FR 27822, June 19, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, although we are unaware of any MON facilities that use
multi-point elevated flares in the specified flare subset, we recognize
that an owner or operator may elect to use this type of flare design in
the future. Given the design similarities of a multi-point elevated
flare when compared to a MPGF (i.e., each flare type uses pressure-
assisted burners with staged arrays), we determined that our analyses
of the test data (including our review of approved AMEL requests)
related to MPGF that control waste gases could also apply to multi-
point elevated flares in the specified subset that combust waste gases.
Therefore, we are proposing that owners and operators of multi-point
elevated flares meet the same requirements that we are proposing for
MPGF. In other words, the proposed requirements discussed in this
section of the preamble would apply to all pressure-assisted multi-
point flares (i.e., MPGF and multi-point elevated flares) in the
specified subset. We are soliciting comment on whether this approach is
appropriate, and whether test data are available for multi-point
elevated flares that control waste gases from MON facilities. We are
also soliciting comment on whether the proposed requirements for
pressure-assisted multi-point flares should ultimately supersede the
currently approved MPGF AMEL requests at MON facilities.
h. Impacts of the Flare Operating and Monitoring Requirements
The EPA expects that the newly proposed requirements for flares in
the specified subset that are discussed in this section will affect
flares at 21 facilities nationwide. We assumed that these facilities
each operate one flare that either controls ethylene oxide emissions or
controls emissions from an olefins and/or polyolefins process. The ACC
provided the EPA a distribution of flares by type for 68 MON facility
flares at 18 facilities. We used this information to estimate the flare
type for each of the 21 flares at MON facilities that control ethylene
oxide emissions or produce olefins and/or polyolefins. Based on this
information, we estimate that the majority of these flares (about 90
percent) have traditional elevated flare tip designs (e.g., steam-
assisted, air-assisted, and non-assisted flare tips) that receive flare
vent gas flows on a regular basis (i.e., other than during periods of
SSM). We also reviewed consent decrees and approved AMEL requests
issued to these facilities. Based on this information, five of the 21
MON facilities are expected to already have the monitoring equipment
needed to better control their flares. Specifically, two facilities
operate under consent decree only, two facilities operate MPGF under
approved AMEL requests only, and one facility both operates under
consent decree and also operates a MPGF under an approved AMEL request.
Therefore, we estimate that only 16 flares are expected to incur costs,
based on the assumption that owners and operators of flares at the five
facilities with consent decrees and/or approved AMEL requests already
have the monitoring equipment in place. Costs were estimated for each
flare for a given facility, considering current monitoring systems
already installed on each individual flare. Given that the same type of
equipment is used for flares in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category and for the petroleum refinery sector,
costs for any additional monitoring systems needed were estimated based
on installed costs received from petroleum refineries and,
[[Page 69206]]
if installed costs were unavailable, costs were estimated based on
vendor-purchased equipment. The baseline emission estimate and the
emission reductions achieved by the proposed flare requirements were
estimated by back-calculating from the NEI-reported VOC and HAP
controlled emissions assuming a 93.1-percent baseline control
efficiency, derived from the best available data.\29\ The results of
the impact estimates are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. We
note that the requirements for flares in the specified subset that we
are proposing in this proposal will ensure compliance with the MACT
standards in the MON when flares are used as an APCD. Because we are
not changing the underlying MACT standards in the MON, we did not
include any of the estimated excess emissions from flares in the
summary of total estimated emissions reductions for this action.
However, we estimate that the proposed operational and monitoring
requirements have the potential to reduce excess emissions from flares
in the specified subset by approximately 260 tpy of HAP and 1,300 tpy
of VOC. The VOC compounds are non-methane, non-ethane total
hydrocarbons. According to the modeling file we used to assess risk
(see section III.C.1 of this preamble), there are approximately 30
individual HAP compounds included in the emission inventory for flares
in the specified subset, but many of these are emitted in trace
quantities. The majority of the HAP emissions from flares are
attributable to HCl, hexane, vinyl acetate, and 1,3-butadiene. Note
that this analysis does not consider costs incurred for flares outside
of the specified subset for which an owner or operator may choose to
opt-in to the proposed requirements. For more detail on the impact
estimates, see the technical memorandum titled Control Option Impacts
for Flares Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Source Category, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ API, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
(NPRA; now known as the American Fuels and Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM)), and the ACC provided the EPA with a dataset
that includes detailed hourly operational information for 38 steam-
assisted flares, characterizing different operating conditions by
waste gas flow rate, steam flow rate, waste gas composition, and
duration of that operating condition.
Table 3--Nationwide Cost Impacts for Flares at MON Facilities That
Control Emissions of Ethylene Oxide or Emissions From Olefins or
Polyolefins Processes \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital Total annualized
Control description investment costs (million $/
(million $) yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flare Operational and Monitoring 17.0 4.05
Requirements...................
Work Practice Standards for 0.16 0.04
Flares Operating Above Their
Smokeless Capacity.............
---------------------------------------
Total....................... 17.2 4.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are calculated for the year 2016.
2. Vent Control Bypasses
a. Pressure Relief Devices
The MON defines several terms applicable to process vents at 40 CFR
63.2550. The current definition of ``continuous process vent'' excludes
``relief valve discharges,'' and instead, the MACT standard in the MON
recognizes relief valve discharges to be the result of malfunctions.
The acronym ``PRD'' means pressure relief device and is common
vernacular to describe the variety of devices regulated as pressure
relief valves (see the end of this section for our proposed definitions
of pressure relief device and relief valve, to provide clarity). PRDs
are designed to remain closed during normal operation. Typically, the
Agency considers PRD releases as the result of an overpressure in the
system caused by operator error, a malfunction such as a power failure
or equipment failure, or other unexpected cause that results in
immediate venting of gas from process equipment to avoid safety hazards
or equipment damage.
The MON currently regulates PRDs when they are seated through
equipment leak provisions that are applied only after the pressure
relief occurs (i.e., conduct monitoring with EPA Method 21 of Appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 after each pressure release using a leak
definition of 500 ppm); however, these provisions do not apply to an
emissions release from a PRD. In addition, the MON follows the EPA's
then-practice of exempting SSM events from otherwise applicable
emission standards. Consequently, with PRD releases defined as
unplanned, nonroutine, and the result of malfunctions, the MON did not
restrict PRD releases to the atmosphere but instead treated them in the
same manner as malfunctions subject to the SSM exemption provision. In
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court
determined that the SSM exemption violates the CAA. Section IV.E.1 of
this preamble contains additional discussions on the removal of the SSM
exemption provision for this source category. As a result, we evaluated
the MACT standard in the MON for PRD discharges to ensure a standard
continuously applies, consistent with the Sierra Club SSM decision.
CAA section 112(d)(1) specifies that the EPA may ``distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes of sources'' when establishing
standards. (In establishing standards under CAA section 112(d), the EPA
may ``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or sub-category.'' CAA section 112(d)(1). See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 885 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). We are proposing two
subcategories of PRDs for the MACT standard in the MON to distinguish
between classes of PRDs: (1) PRDs designed to vent through a closed-
vent system to a control device or to a process, fuel gas system, or
drain system (referred to as PRDs that vent to a control system); and
(2) PRDs designed to vent to the atmosphere, if a release were to
occur. We are proposing to subcategorize PRDs by class because of
design differences between the numerous PRDs at MON facilities that
vent to a control system and that vent to the atmosphere. Currently,
MON facilities are required to evaluate PRDs as part of their risk
management and process safety management programs. When implementing
these programs, facilities identify PRDs that they intend to control as
compared to those they elect not to control (and that have the
potential to vent to the atmosphere if a release were to occur).
Facilities do not control certain PRDs because of technical or site-
specific safety considerations, such as PRDs that
[[Page 69207]]
release chemicals that could be incompatible with vent streams in
downstream controls.
We evaluated each subcategory of PRDs separately to ensure that a
standard continuously applies. Essentially, PRDs that vent to a control
system are already complying with the process vent standards and are,
thus, presumably, already appropriately controlled. However, PRDs that
vent to atmosphere cannot meet the current continuous process vent
standards. Therefore, we examined whether it would be feasible to
regulate PRDs that vent to atmosphere under CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3). As detailed here, we determined it was feasible to regulate PRDs
that vent to atmosphere under CAA section 112(h) and are proposing work
practice standards at 40 CFR 63.2480(e) that are intended to reduce the
number of PRD releases and will incentivize owners or operators to
eliminate the causes of PRD releases to the atmosphere.
No MON facility is subject to numeric emission limits for PRDs that
vent to the atmosphere. Further, we do not believe it is appropriate to
subject PRDs that vent to the atmosphere to numeric emission limits due
to technological and economical limitations that make it impracticable
to measure emissions from such PRDs. CAA section 112(h)(1) states that
the EPA may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirement,
consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those
cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible
to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) further
defines the term ``not feasible'' in this context as meaning that ``the
application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.'' We
consider it appropriate to establish a work practice standard for PRDs
that vent to atmosphere as provided in CAA section 112(h), because the
application of a measurement methodology for PRDs that vent to
atmosphere is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations. First, it is not practicable to use a measurement
methodology for PRD releases that vent to atmosphere. PRDs are designed
to remain closed during normal operations and release emissions only
during nonroutine and unplanned events, and the venting time can be
very short and may vary widely in composition and flow rate. These
unique event characteristics make it infeasible to collect a grab
sample of the gases when a PRD release occurs, and a single grab sample
would also likely not account for potential variation in vent gas
composition. Additionally, it would not be cost-effective to construct
an appropriate conveyance and install and operate continuous monitoring
systems for each individual PRD that vents to atmosphere in order to
attempt to quantitatively measure a release event that may occur only a
few times in a 3-year period. (See U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d
579, 664-67 (2016).) Further, we have not identified any available,
technically feasible continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that
can accurately determine a mass release quantity of VOC or HAP given
the flow, composition, and composition variability of potential PRD
releases that vent to the atmosphere from MCPUs. Rather, we have
identified only monitoring systems capable of alerting an owner or
operator when a PRD release occurs. Consequently, we concluded that it
is appropriate to establish a work practice standard for PRDs that vent
to atmosphere as provided in CAA section 112(h).
We also reviewed information about MON facilities to determine how
the best performers are minimizing emissions from PRDs that vent to
atmosphere. We first reviewed the requirements in the EPA's Chemical
Accident Prevention Provisions (40 CFR part 68) and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration's (OSHA) Process Safety Management rule (29
CFR 1910.119). These rules focus on planning for and minimizing or
preventing scenarios which would result in releases of chemicals. For
example, as stated in Appendix C to the OSHA rule, ``Process safety
management is the proactive identification, evaluation and mitigation
or prevention of chemical releases that could occur as a result of
failures in process, procedures or equipment.'' The rules are
applicable to any equipment in the process, and relief valves are
identified in each rule as an applicable source to evaluate. The EPA
and OSHA rules have similar requirements, except that applicability
determination is unique to each rule. Owners or operators are subject
to the EPA's Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions at 40 CFR part 68
if a process has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance. Regulated substances and their thresholds are listed at 40
CFR 68.130. Owners or operators are subject to OSHA's Process Safety
Management rule at 29 CFR 1910.119 if a process involves either a
chemical that is above specified threshold quantities (listed in
appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.119) or a Category 1 flammable gas or liquid.
MON facilities may be subject to the Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions rule, as identified in their title V permit (40 CFR 68.215
requires permits to list part 68 as an applicable requirement, if
subject). As a result, we further reviewed this rule for consideration
in developing the work practice standard.
The EPA's Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions require a
prevention program. Facilities subject to the MON would fall under
prevention program 3. Prevention program 3 includes the following:
Documentation of process safety information, conducting a hazard
analysis, documentation of operating procedures, employee training, on-
going maintenance, and incident investigations. The process safety
information documented must include information pertaining to the
hazards of the regulated substances in the process, the technology of
the process, and the process equipment (including relief valves). When
conducting the hazard analysis, facilities must identify, evaluate, and
control the hazards in the process; controls may consider the
application of detection methodologies (e.g., process monitoring and
control instrumentation) to provide early warning of releases. The
operating procedures must address multiple operating scenarios (e.g.,
normal operations, startup, emergency shutdown) and provide
instructions for safely conducting process activities. Conducting the
hazard analysis and documenting operating procedures are similar to
prevention measures, discussed below, though we note a specific number
of measures or controls is not specified for the program 3 prevention
program. Incident investigations must document the factors that
contributed to an incident and any resolutions and corrective actions
(incident investigations are consistent with root cause analysis and
corrective action, discussed below). Facilities are also required to
document this information in a Risk Management Plan that must be
updated at least every 5 years.
Next, we considered that some companies operating MON facilities
also own and operate petroleum refineries and may have established
company-wide best practices as a result of specific state and federal
requirements. For example, petroleum refineries and chemical plants
located in certain counties in California are subject to and complying
with specific requirements for PRDs such as the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
[[Page 69208]]
(BAAQMD) Rule 8-28-304 and South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1173. The BAAQMD rule requires implementation of three
prevention measures, and both rules require root cause analysis and
corrective action for certain PRDs. These rules also formed the basis
of the work practice standards promulgated for PRD releases at
petroleum refineries in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR performed by
the EPA (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015).
Considering our review of the EPA's Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions and company-wide best practices that MON facilities may have
implemented, we expect that the best performing MON facilities have
implemented a program for PRDs that vent to the atmosphere that
consists of using at least three prevention measures and performing
root cause analysis and corrective action in the event that a PRD does
release emissions directly to the atmosphere. We used this information
as the basis of the work practice standards that we are proposing at 40
CFR 63.2480(e). Examples of prevention measures include the following:
Flow indicators, level indicators, temperature indicators, pressure
indicators, routine inspection and maintenance programs, operator
training, inherently safer designs, safety instrumentation systems,
deluge systems, and staged relief systems where the initial PRD
discharges to a control system.
We are also proposing a limit on the number of PRD releases that
would result in a deviation from the work practice standard for PRDs
that vent to the atmosphere. We believe setting criteria to determine a
deviation is necessary for the work practice to be effective. We
considered limits on the number of PRD releases in both 3- and 5-year
periods. Based on a Monte Carlo analysis of random rare events (as
conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule \30\), we note that it
is quite likely to have two or three events in a 5-year period when a
long time horizon (e.g., 20 years) is considered. Therefore, we are
proposing to limit the number of PRD releases from a single PRD to
either one, two, or three (depending on the root cause) in a 3-year
period as the basis of a deviation from the work practice standard. We
are proposing that it is a deviation from the work practice standard if
a single PRD that vents to atmosphere has two releases within a 3-year
period due to the same root cause. We believe that this provision will
help ensure that root cause/corrective action are conducted
effectively. Otherwise, we are proposing that it is a deviation from
the work practice standard if a single PRD that vents to atmosphere has
three releases within a 3-year period for any reason. In addition, we
are proposing that any PRD release for which the root cause was
determined to be operator error or poor maintenance is a deviation from
the work practice standard. Refer to 40 CFR 63.2480(e)(3)(v) for these
proposed provisions. We are proposing that ``force majeure'' events
would not be included when counting the number of releases. ``Force
majeure'' events result from natural disasters, acts of war or
terrorism, or external power curtailment beyond the facility's control.
These types of events are beyond the control of the owner or operator.
We are providing that these events should not be included in the event
count, but that they would be subject to the root cause analysis in
order to confirm whether the release was caused by a force majeure
event. Based on our cost assumptions, the nationwide capital cost for
complying with the PRD work practice requirements is $6.03 million and
the annualized capital costs is $0.58 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 80 FR 75217, December 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we believe that it is appropriate to exclude certain
types of PRDs that have very low potential to emit based on their type
of service, size, and/or pressure from the proposed work practice
standard for PRD releases that vent to atmosphere. Both the Chemical
Accident Prevention Provisions and the California petroleum refinery
PRD rules also exempt or impose simpler requirements for certain PRDs.
We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2480(e)(5) that the following types of
PRDs would not be subject to the work practice standard for PRDs that
vent to the atmosphere: (1) PRDs with a design release pressure of less
than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig); (2) PRDs in heavy liquid
service; (3) PRDs that are designed solely to release due to liquid
thermal expansion; and (4) pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs if
the primary release valve associated with the PRD is vented through a
control system. Each of the types of PRDs that we are proposing are not
subject to the work practice standard are discussed in greater detail
here. With regard to PRDs with a design release pressure of less than
2.5 psig, it is technically infeasible to pipe sources with a release
pressure of less than 2.5 psig to a flare (or other similar control
system) because the back pressure in the flare header system generally
exceeds 2.5 psig. Therefore, we are proposing that PRDs with a design
release pressure of less than 2.5 psig are not subject to the work
practice standard. With regard to PRDs in heavy liquid service, any
release from a PRD in heavy liquid service would have a visual
indication of a leak and any repairs to the valve would have to be
further inspected and, if necessary, repaired under the existing
equipment leak provisions. Therefore, we are proposing that PRDs in
heavy liquid service are not subject to the work practice standard. In
addition, we are proposing that PRDs designed solely to release due to
liquid thermal expansion are not subject to the work practice standard.
We expect that releases from these thermal relief valves would be
insignificant. Finally, we are also proposing that pilot-operated PRDs
(where emissions can be released to the atmosphere through a pilot
discharge vent) and balanced bellow PRDs (where emissions can be
released to the atmosphere through a bonnet vent) are not subject to
the work practice standard, if the primary release valve associated
with the pilot-operated or balanced bellows PRD is vented through a
control system. Pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs are primarily
used for pressure relief when the back pressure of the discharge vent
may be high or variable. Conventional pressure relief devices act on a
differential pressure between the process gas and the discharge vent.
If the discharge vent pressure increases, the vessel pressure at which
the PRD will open increases, potentially leading to vessel over-
pressurization that could cause vessel failure. Balanced bellows PRDs
use a bellow to shield the pressure relief stem and top portion of the
valve seat from the discharge vent pressure. A balanced bellows PRD
will not discharge gas to the atmosphere during a release event, except
for leaks through the bonnet vent due to bellows failure or fatigue.
Pilot-operated PRDs use a small pilot safety valve that discharges to
the atmosphere to effect actuation of the primary valve or piston,
which then discharges to a control system. Balanced bellows or pilot
operated PRDs are considered a reasonable and necessary means to safely
control the primary PRD release.
For all PRDs in organic HAP service, owners or operators would
still be required to comply with the leak detection and repair (LDAR)
provisions, as they are currently applicable. Therefore, all PRDs that
vent to the atmosphere would still perform LDAR to ensure the PRD
properly reseats if a release does occur, and PRDs that vent to control
systems would still be exempt from LDAR requirements given that if a
release were to occur from this specific
[[Page 69209]]
class of PRDs, it would vent to a closed vent system and control
device.
Finally, to ensure compliance with the proposed work practice
standard for PRDs that vent to the atmosphere, we are also proposing at
40 CFR 63.2480(e)(3) that sources monitor these PRDs using a system
that is capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of
each pressure release and of notifying operators that a pressure
release has occurred. Pressure release events from PRDs that vent to
atmosphere have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP. When a
pressure release occurs, it is important to identify and mitigate it as
quickly as possible. For purposes of estimating the costs of this
requirement, we assumed that operators would install electronic
monitors on PRDs that vent to atmosphere to identify and record the
time and duration of each pressure release. However, we are proposing
to allow owners and operators to use a range of methods to satisfy
these requirements, including the use of a parameter monitoring system
(that may already be in place) on the process operating pressure that
is sufficient to indicate that a pressure release has occurred as well
as record the time and duration of that pressure release. Based on our
cost assumptions, the nationwide capital cost of installing these
electronic monitors is $12.7 million, and the annualized capital cost
is $1.68 million per year.
We also considered requiring all PRDs to be vented to a control
device as a beyond-the-floor requirement. While this would provide
additional emission reductions beyond those we are establishing as the
MACT floor, these reductions come at significant costs. Assuming 25
percent to 50 percent of PRDs already vent to a control device, the
capital cost for controlling the remaining PRDs ranges from $2,540
million to $5,070 million, and the annualized cost ranges from $330
million to $660 million. The incremental cost effectiveness for
requiring control of all PRDs that vent to atmosphere compared to the
requirements described above exceeds $80 million per ton of HAP
reduced. Consequently, we conclude that this is not a cost-effective
option.
The EPA is also proposing a requirement that any future installed
pilot-operated PRDs be the non-flowing type. As previously noted, under
CAA section 112(d)(1), the EPA may ``distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes of sources'' when establishing standards. There are two
designs of pilot-operated PRDs: Flowing and non-flowing. When a flowing
pilot-operated PRD is actuated, the pilot discharge vent continuously
releases emissions; however, when a non-flowing pilot-operated PRD is
actuated, the pilot discharge vent does not vent continuously. Although
we expect pilot discharge vent emissions to be minimal for both
designs, limiting the future use of flowing pilot-operated PRDs is
warranted to prevent continuous release of emissions. Therefore, we are
proposing at 40 CFR 63.2480(e)(8) to require future installation and
operation of non-flowing pilot-operated PRDs at all affected sources.
The terms ``pressure release,'' ``pressure relief device,'' and
``relief valve'' are not defined in the MON; therefore, we are
proposing a definition for each of these terms at 40 CFR 63.2550(i)
that would apply only to the MON standards. We are proposing to define
``pressure release'' as the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period. We are proposing to define ``pressure relief
device'' as a valve, rupture disk, or similar device used only to
release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas from process
equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. A
pressure relief device discharge can result from an operator error, a
malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or other
unexpected cause. Such devices include conventional, spring-actuated
relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated relief
valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin devices.
We are proposing to define ``relief valve'' as a type of pressure
relief device that is designed to re-close after the pressure relief.
We solicit comment on all of the proposed revisions for PRDs. See
the technical memorandum titled Review of Regulatory Alternatives for
Certain Vent Streams in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking for
details on the assumptions and methodologies used in this analysis.
b. Closed-Vent System Containing Bypass Lines
For a closed-vent system containing bypass lines that can divert
the stream away from the APCD to the atmosphere, the MON requires the
owner or operator to either (1) install, maintain, and operate a
continuous parametric monitoring system for flow on the bypass line
that is capable of detecting whether a vent stream flow is present at
least once every 15 minutes or (2) secure the bypass line valve in the
non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration. Depending on the emission source, the MON references
bypass line requirements in either 40 CFR part 63, subparts G, H, and
SS, or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F. Under option (2), the owner or
operator is also required to inspect the seal or closure mechanism at
least once per month to verify the valve is maintained in the non-
diverting position (e.g., see 40 CFR 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B) for more
details). To ensure standards apply to MON emission sources at all
times, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(6) that an owner or
operator may not bypass the APCD at any time, and if a bypass is used,
then we are proposing that owners and operators estimate and report the
quantity of organic HAP released. We are proposing this revision
because bypassing an APCD could result in a release of regulated
organic HAP to the atmosphere and to be consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), where the Court determined that
standards under CAA section 112(d) must provide for compliance at all
times. We are also proposing that the use of a cap, blind flange, plug,
or second valve on an open-ended valve or line is sufficient to prevent
a bypass. We solicit comment on these proposed revisions.
c. Maintenance Activities
The EPA is proposing that emission limits apply at all times
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. We recognize that this proposed
change for vent streams that are periodically discharged will affect
certain maintenance activities such as those that require equipment
openings, and we consider maintenance activities a separate class of
startup and shutdown emissions because there must be a point in time
when the equipment can be opened, and any remaining emissions are
vented to the atmosphere. We also acknowledge that it would require a
significant effort to identify and characterize each of these potential
release points (e.g., for permitting purposes).
We reviewed state permit conditions and determined the best
performers' permits specify that they meet certain conditions before
they open equipment to the atmosphere. The conditions include
thresholds regarding the lower explosive limit (LEL) and the mass of
gas that may be emitted. Therefore, we are proposing a work practice
standard at 40 CFR 63.2455(d)(1)(i) that prior to opening process
equipment to the
[[Page 69210]]
atmosphere during maintenance events, the equipment first be drained
and purged to a closed system so that the hydrocarbon content is less
than or equal to 10 percent of the LEL. For those situations where 10-
percent LEL cannot be demonstrated, we are proposing at 40 CFR
63.2455(d)(1)(ii) that the equipment may be opened and vented to the
atmosphere if the pressure is less than or equal to 5 psig, provided
there is no active purging of the equipment to the atmosphere until the
LEL criterion is met. We are proposing this 5 psig threshold to
acknowledge that a certain minimum pressure must exist for the flare
header system (or other similar control system) to operate properly. We
are also proposing at 40 CFR 63.2455(d)(1)(iii) that equipment may be
opened when there is less than 50 pounds of VOC that may be emitted to
the atmosphere.
We also acknowledge that installing a blind flange to prepare
equipment for maintenance may be necessary and by doing so, the owner
or operator may not be able to meet the proposed maintenance vent
conditions mentioned above (e.g., a valve used to isolate the equipment
will not seat fully so organic material may continually leak into the
isolated equipment). To limit the emissions during the blind flange
installation, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2455(d)(1)(iv)
depressurizing the equipment to 2 psig or less prior to equipment
opening and maintaining pressure of the equipment where purge gas
enters the equipment at or below 2 psig during the blind flange
installation. The low allowable pressure limit will reduce the amount
of process gas that will be released during the initial equipment
opening, and the ongoing 2 psig pressure requirement will limit the
purge gas rate. Together, these proposed provisions will limit the
emissions during blind flange installation and will result in
comparable emissions allowed under the proposed maintenance vent
conditions mentioned above. We expect these situations to be rare and
that the owner or operator would remedy the situation as soon as
practical (e.g., replace the isolation valve or valve seat during the
next turnaround in the example provided above). Therefore, we are only
proposing that this alternative maintenance vent limit be used under
those situations where the proposed primary limits (i.e., hydrocarbon
content is less than or equal to 10 percent of the LEL, pressure is
less than or equal to 5 psig, or VOC is less than 50 pounds) are not
achievable and blinding of the equipment is necessary.
We expect that all MON facilities already have standard procedures
in place when performing equipment openings. As such, the only costs
incurred are for recordkeeping after each non-conforming event. We are
proposing that owners or operators document each circumstance under
which the alternative maintenance vent limit is used, providing an
explanation as to why other criteria could not be met prior to
equipment blinding and an estimate of the emissions that occurred
during the equipment blinding process. We calculated the annual costs
to be $2,340 per year. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions
related to maintenance activities. For additional details and
discussion, see the technical memorandum titled Review of Regulatory
Alternatives for Certain Vent Streams in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
d. Flares and Fuel Gas Systems
The current definition of ``batch process vent'' at 40 CFR
63.2550(i) states that ``gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas
system(s)'' are not batch process vents. Gas streams going to fuel gas
systems are also exempt from the current definition of ``continuous
process vent'' at 40 CFR 63.2550(i) by referencing 40 CFR 63.107(h)(3).
In addition, other MON standards (i.e., standards for storage tanks and
transfer racks) also allow emissions to be routed to a fuel gas system
for compliance purposes. A combustion device (typically a boiler or
process heater) burning these gaseous streams as fuel effectively
achieves the most stringent level of control (i.e., 98-percent organic
HAP reduction or an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv).
However, there can be instances when gaseous streams from the fuel gas
system that would otherwise be combusted in a boiler or process heater
are instead routed to a flare (e.g., overpressure in the fuel gas
system, used as flare sweep gas, used as flare purge gas). In cases
where an emission source is required to be controlled in the MON
standards but is routed to a fuel gas system, we are proposing that any
flare receiving gases from that fuel gas system derived from an MCPU
that has processes and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service or that
produces olefins or polyolefins, comply with the flare operating and
monitoring requirements discussed in section IV.A.1 of this preamble.
We recognize that this proposed provision may require owners or
operators that use fuel gas for any purpose (e.g., flare sweep gas,
flare purge gas, flare supplemental gas) in other flare APCDs that
predominately control emissions from other source categories to comply
with the proposed flare revisions discussed in section IV.A.1 of this
preamble. Thus, in order to minimize this impact, we are proposing that
any flare that utilizes fuel gas whereby the majority (i.e., 50 percent
or more) of the fuel gas in the fuel gas system is derived from an MCPU
that has processes and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service or that
produces olefins or polyolefins comply with the flare operating and
monitoring requirements discussed in section IV.A.1 of this preamble.
We solicit comment on these proposed revisions.
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described in section III.C of this preamble, we conducted an
inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted and multipathway and
environmental risk screening assessments on the PB-HAP emitted. We
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail
in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
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 is 2,000-in-1
million driven by ethylene oxide emissions from storage tanks (75
percent), equipment leaks (15 percent), and process vents (8 percent).
The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable
emission levels is 0.4 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every
2.5 years. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1
million for actual and allowable emissions is approximately 18,000, and
the population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million is approximately 2,900,000 (see Table 4 of this preamble). In
addition, the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source
category based on actual and allowable emissions is estimated to be 1.
[[Page 69211]]
Table 4--Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated population at
Maximum increased risk of cancer \2\ Estimated annual Maximum
Number of individual ---------------------------------- cancer incidence chronic Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ
facilities \1\ cancer risk (in >100-in-1 >=1-in-1 (cases per year) \2\ noncancer
1 million) \2\ million million TOSHI \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
194 2,000 18,000 2,900,000 0.4 1 HQREL = 6 (acrolein).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
As presented in Table 4 of this preamble, the estimated worst-case
acute exposures to emissions from the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category result in a maximum acute HQ of 6 based
on the REL for acrolein (the next highest dose-response value for
acrolein, the AEGL-1, results in an HQ of 0.2). There are 11 additional
instances of acute HQs greater than 1 from the source category.
Evaluation of the screening-level acute risk assessment results is
provided in a memo to the docket titled Evaluation of the Screening-
Level Acute Risk Assessment Results for the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing (MON) Source Category. Detailed information
about the assessment is provided in Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum
Tier 2 cancer SV of 10 for POM for the farmer scenario. The Tier 2 SVs
for all other PB-HAP emitted from the source category (mercury
compounds, cadmium compounds, and arsenic compounds) were less than 1.
The Tier 2 cancer SV for POM means that the maximum cancer risk from
exposure to POM emissions through ingestion of farm products is less
than 10-in-1 million. No site-specific assessment using TRIM FaTE
(which incorporates AERMOD deposition, enhanced soil/water run-off
calculations, and model boundary identification) or Tier 3 screening
assessment was deemed necessary due to the conservative nature of the
Tier 2 screen and the hypothetical construct of the farmer scenario.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway risk from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the primary
NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\). The highest annual lead
concentration of 0.0006 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below the NAAQS for lead,
indicating low potential for multipathway risk of concern due to lead
emissions.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category for the following pollutants:
Arsenic, cadmium, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric
chloride), and POMs.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic and cadmium emissions had no
exceedances for any ecological benchmark. Divalent mercury emissions at
three facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil threshold
level (invertebrate and plant communities) by a maximum SV of 10.
Methyl mercury emissions at three facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for
the surface soil NOAEL (avian ground insectivores and mammalian
insectivores) by a maximum SV of 20. POM emissions at four facilities
had Tier 1 exceedances for the sediment no-effect level by a maximum SV
of 10, and one facility had a Tier 1 exceedance of the sediment
threshold level by a maximum SV of 2.
A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for divalent mercury,
methyl mercury, and POM emissions. Neither divalent mercury, methyl
mercury, nor POM emissions had a Tier 2 exceedance for any ecological
benchmark.
We did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS.
For HCl and HF, 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 and HF (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.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of facility-wide (or ``whole facility'') risks was
performed as described above to characterize the source category risk
in the context of whole facility risks. Whole facility risks were
estimated using the NEI-based data described in section III.C of this
preamble. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 194
modeled facilities, based on whole facility emissions, is 3,000-in-1
million, with ethylene oxide emissions from fugitive emissions and
flares from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Polyether
Polyols Production, and Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
source categories driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer risk
assessment, the maximum chronic noncancer HI posed by whole facility
emissions is estimated to be 7 (for the respiratory system as the
target organ), driven by emissions of chlorine and methyl bromide from
non-source category sources identified as brominated organic
manufacturing.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk 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 risk from the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category across different demographic
[[Page 69212]]
groups within the populations living near facilities.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, other races
and multiracial, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, over 25 and without a high school
diploma, over 25 and with a high school diploma, and linguistically
isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5
below. These 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.
Table 5--Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results--50 km
Study Area Radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk Population
greater than or with hazard
equal to 1 in 1 index greater
million than 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source Category
---------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................ 317,746,049 2,858,862 0
---------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
White....................................................... 62% 44% 0%
Minority.................................................... 38% 56% 0%
---------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
---------------------------------------------------
African American............................................ 12% 21% 0%
Native American............................................. 0.8% 0.2% 0%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)............ 18% 31% 0%
Other and Multiracial....................................... 7% 4% 0%
---------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
---------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level......................................... 14% 16% 0%
Above Poverty Level......................................... 86% 84% 0%
---------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
---------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................... 14% 20% 0%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma...................... 86% 80% 0%
---------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
---------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..................................... 6% 8% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the
source category expose approximately 2,900,000 people to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in each
demographic group (except for White and Non-Hispanic) are similar to or
greater than their respective nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in
the docket for this action.
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
As noted in section III 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). For this
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source
category, and we considered these in determining acceptability.
1. Residual Risks Under the Current MACT Provisions
Under the current NESHAP, the risk results indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most
exposed are well above 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive limit
of acceptability. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the
individual most exposed to actual or allowable emissions from the
source category is 2,000-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of
cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.4 excess cancer cases per year,
or 1 excess case every 2.5 years. The population estimated to be
exposed to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million for actual and
allowable emissions is approximately 18,000, and the population
estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million is approximately 2,900,000.
[[Page 69213]]
The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation
exposure for this source category is 1, indicating low likelihood of
adverse noncancer effects from long-term inhalation exposures.
The multipathway risk assessment results indicated a maximum cancer
risk of 10-in-1 million based on ingestion exposures estimated using
the health protective risk screening assumptions of a Tier 2 farmer
exposure scenario.
The acute risk screening assessment of reasonable worst-case
inhalation impacts indicates a maximum acute HQ of 6 for acrolein based
on the 1-hour REL. There are 11 additional instances of HQs greater
than 1. For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the
potential health risks associated with estimated reasonable worst-case
acute exposures to HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute
health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. Examination of the range of available acute health
metrics, in addition to the conservative (health-protective)
assumptions built into the screening assessment, leads us to conclude
that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions from this
category are not anticipated. More detailed information is provided in
the memo to the docket titled Evaluation of the Screening-Level Acute
Risk Assessment Results for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing (MON) Source Category.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III
of this preamble (and taking into account uncertainties in the 2016
updated URE for ethylene oxide and concerns raised by commenters, as
discussed in section IV.C.3 of this preamble), the EPA proposes that
the risks for this source category under the current MACT provisions
are unacceptable. As noted in section II.A of this preamble, when risks
are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards
necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering
costs or technological feasibility. Therefore, we are proposing to
revise the NESHAP for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
(MON) source category pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) on the basis
for risks being unacceptable.
2. Proposed Controls To Address Risks
We evaluated several control options for reducing risks. Based on
the results of the risk assessment, we have identified ethylene oxide
as the primary contributor to risks. Ethylene oxide is primarily used
at MON facilities as a feedstock in the production of miscellaneous
chemicals, including alkyl alkanolamines, agrochemical products,
ethoxylates, surfactants, and batch-produced polyols and glycols that
are not subject to other NESHAP. Information gathered in this
rulemaking indicates that, of the nine facilities identified with
ethylene oxide emissions from MON processes, three have emissions from
process vents, four have emissions from storage tanks, and all nine
have emissions from equipment leaks. We did not identify any ethylene
oxide emissions from other MON process units (e.g., heat exchange
systems, wastewater, transfer operations); therefore, we are soliciting
comment on data related to these other MON process units being
potential sources of ethylene oxide emissions. Based on the available
data, we analyzed control options for process vents, storage tanks, and
equipment leaks to reduce risk.
Process vents and storage tanks as a source of ethylene oxide
emissions. Emissions of ethylene oxide can occur from several types of
process vents, such as distillation columns, evaporator vents, and
vacuum operations, as well as during vapor displacements and heating
losses. Storage tanks are used to store liquid and gaseous feedstocks
for use in a process, as well as to store liquid and gaseous products
from a process. Ethylene oxide is typically stored under pressure as a
liquified gas but may also be present at lower concentrations within
non-pressurized storage tanks. The pressurized tanks typically use a
blanket of inert gas, most often nitrogen, to maintain a non-
decomposable vapor space. Emissions from ethylene oxide pressure
vessels occur both during loading operations and during the continuous
purge of vapor space from non-loading operations.
The current MON standards divide process vents into Group 1 process
vents, which require controls, and Group 2 process vents, which
generally do not require controls. The Group 1 and Group 2 designations
for process vents are based on uncontrolled emissions levels for
process vents from batch processes and on flow rate and the total
resource index values for process vents from continuous processes. The
current MON standard requires uncontrolled Group 1 process vents to
reduce total HAP emissions by 98 percent by venting emissions through a
closed-vent system to any combination of control devices or to vent
emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare. The current MON
standard also allows uncontrolled Group 1 batch process vents to be
controlled by reducing uncontrolled emissions by 95 percent by venting
through a closed-vent system to a recovery device. For process vents,
the MON allows use of a design evaluation instead of a performance test
to determine the percent reduction of control devices if the total
uncontrolled HAP emissions being sent to the control device are less
than 10 tpy.
Similarly, the current MON standards divide storage tanks into
Group 1 storage tanks, which require control, and Group 2 storage
tanks, which generally do not. The Group 1 and Group 2 designation for
storage tanks is based on the volume of the storage tank and vapor
pressure of the material stored. The current MON standards require
uncontrolled Group 1 storage tanks to reduce total HAP emissions by 95
percent by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices or to vent emissions through a closed-
vent system to a flare. The MON allows certain storage tanks to be
controlled using the floating roof requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WW, but this option is not applicable to storage tanks
containing pure ethylene oxide. For storage tanks, the MON allows use
of a design evaluation instead of a performance test to determine the
percent reduction of control devices for any quantity of total
uncontrolled HAP emissions being sent to the control device.
Results from our risk assessment indicate that, of the source
category MIR of 2,000-in-1 million, 8 percent of the risk is from
process vent emissions of ethylene oxide and 75 percent of the risk is
from storage tank emissions of ethylene oxide. The remaining risk is
mostly from equipment leaks. To understand how to best address risk
within the source category, we reviewed information gathered for this
rulemaking for the three facilities identified with ethylene oxide
emissions from process vents and the four facilities identified with
ethylene oxide emissions from storage tanks. Of these emission process
sources, only one storage tank was classified as Group 1 and was,
therefore, required to control emissions. The remaining storage tanks
and process vents are classified as Group 2 and are not currently
required to control emissions. We note that the Group 1 storage tank
contains pure
[[Page 69214]]
ethylene oxide, and the Group 2 storage tanks contain ethylene oxide at
lower concentrations. Performance test data for the scrubber
controlling the Group 1 storage tank were unavailable because a design
evaluation was used to demonstrate compliance in lieu of performance
testing. Based on results from the risk assessment, we also determined
that the current MACT provisions for process vents and storage tanks do
not result in sufficient reductions of ethylene oxide emissions, and,
therefore, we evaluated available control technologies with a higher
level of control, as discussed below.
Proposed process vent and storage tank control technologies. To
address the risk from ethylene oxide emissions from process vents and
storage tanks, we performed a review of available control technologies
and identified two options. The first technology is any control device
capable of achieving 99.9-percent reduction of uncontrolled ethylene
oxide emissions. The second technology is a flare meeting the proposed
flare operating requirements discussed in section IV.A.1 of this
preamble.
An example of a control technology that can achieve 99.9-percent
reduction of uncontrolled ethylene oxide emissions is packed-tower gas
absorbers, also referred to in this proposal as scrubbers. These
scrubbers control emissions from MON process vents and storage tanks by
absorbing ethylene oxide into aqueous systems. The absorbed ethylene
oxide can then be reacted to form glycol or can be recovered for
downstream use. These systems can be designed to achieve very high
ethylene oxide removal, with information provided by one scrubber
vendor claiming that many of these systems achieve 99.9 percent or
greater removal of ethylene oxide from vent gas. Information gathered
in this rulemaking indicates that MON facilities with ethylene oxide
emissions from process vents and storage tanks commonly use scrubbers
to control emissions.
Flares used as APCDs are expected to achieve 98-percent HAP
destruction efficiencies when designed and operated according to the
requirements in the General Provisions. As discussed in section IV.A.1
of this preamble, studies on flare performance indicate that these
General Provision requirements are inadequate to ensure proper
performance of flares at chemical manufacturing facilities,
particularly when either assist steam or assist air is used. It is
expected that flares controlling ethylene oxide, which is highly
flammable and, therefore, readily controlled by combustion controls,
operating under the improved efficiency standards proposed in this
preamble would achieve more than the 98-percent destruction efficiency
required by the flare standard. While we did not identify any process
vents or storage tanks in ethylene oxide service that are being
controlled primarily by a flare, it is reasonable to expect that, in
the case that these streams were controlled by a flare, these
requirements would provide the same level of control as other high
efficiency ethylene oxide controls.
Equipment leaks as a source of ethylene oxide emissions. Emissions
from equipment leaks occur in the form of gases or liquids that escape
to the atmosphere through connection points (e.g., threaded fittings)
or through the moving parts of valves, pumps, compressors, PRDs, and
certain types of process equipment. The equipment leak provisions of
the MON require meeting control requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subparts H (National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Equipment Leaks), UU (National Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards), or 40 CFR part 65, subpart
F (the Consolidated Air Rule for Equipment Leaks) for existing MON
processes and 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F,
for new MON processes. The applicable equipment is those components,
including pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices,
sampling collection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, and
connectors that contain or contact material that is 5 percent by weight
or more of organic HAP, operate 300 hours per year or more, and are not
in vacuum service. The equipment leak requirements vary by equipment
(component) type but require LDAR using monitoring with EPA Method 21
of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 at certain frequencies (e.g.,
monthly, quarterly, every 2 quarters, annually) and have varying leak
definitions (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 10,000 ppm) depending on the
type of service (e.g., gas and vapor service or in light liquid
service). The LDAR requirements for components in heavy liquid service
include sensory monitoring and the use of EPA Method 21 monitoring if a
leak is identified.
Results from our risk assessment indicate that, for the source
category MIR of 2,000-in-1 million, approximately 15 percent is from
equipment leak emissions of ethylene oxide. We note that the risk at a
second facility is also greater than 100-in-1 million (i.e., 300-in-1
million), with approximately 95 percent of the risk from equipment leak
emissions of ethylene oxide.
LDAR and equipment leak control technologies. To address the risk
from ethylene oxide emissions from equipment leaks, we performed a
review of available measures for reducing ethylene oxide emissions from
components that were most likely to be in ethylene oxide service, which
included pumps in light liquid service at batch processes, connectors
in gas and vapor service or light liquid service, and valves in gas or
light liquid service. This review relied on information from a 2011
analysis that identified developments for equipment leaks at chemical
manufacturing facilities and petroleum refineries,\32\ herein referred
to as the 2011 equipment leaks analysis. We identified several
developments in LDAR practices and processes, summarized here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Hancy. 2001. Memorandum from Hancy, C., RTI International
to Howard, J., EPA/OAQPS. Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques
for Equipment Leaks, December 21, 2011. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For light liquid pumps, we identified two options: (1) Lower the
leak definition for batch pumps from 10,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm with
monthly monitoring or (2) require the use of leakless pumps (i.e.,
canned pumps, magnetic drive pumps, diaphragm pumps, pumps with tandem
mechanical seals, pumps with double mechanical seals) with annual
monitoring with a leak definition of any reading above background
concentration levels.
For gas/vapor and light liquid connectors, we identified two
options: (1) Require connector monitoring at a leak definition of 500
ppm with annual monitoring or (2) require connector monitoring at a
leak definition of 100 ppm with monthly monitoring.
For gas/vapor and light liquid valves, we identified two options:
(1) Require leakless valves (i.e., bellows seal gate and bellows seal
globe valves with bellows welded to both the bonnet and stem) with
annual monitoring with a leak definition of any reading above
background concentration levels or (2) lower the leak definition from
500 ppm to any reading above background concentration levels with
monthly monitoring.
Additional information on all evaluated control options is found in
the memorandum titled Analysis of Control Options for Equipment Leaks
at Processes that use Ethylene Oxide Located in the Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, in the docket for this
rulemaking.
[[Page 69215]]
Regulatory options. For process vents, storage tanks, and equipment
leaks, we considered the control options described above for reducing
risk from the source category. To reduce risk in the source category,
we propose to require control of ethylene oxide for (1) process vents,
(2) storage tanks, and (3) equipment ``in ethylene oxide service''
(defined in this proposal).\33\ For process vents and storage tanks,
this control requirement is regardless of whether the equipment is
classified as Group 1 or Group 2 for HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For process vents, we are proposing to define ``in ethylene
oxide service'' to mean that each batch and continuous process vent
in a process that, when uncontrolled, contains a concentration of
greater than or equal to 1 ppmv undiluted ethylene oxide, and when
combined, the sum of all these process vents would emit
uncontrolled, undiluted ethylene oxide emissions greater than or
equal to 5 pounds per year (2.27 kilograms per year). For storage
tanks of any capacity and vapor pressure, we are proposing to define
``in ethylene oxide service'' to mean that the concentration of
ethylene oxide of the stored liquid is greater than or equal to 1
parts per millions by weight (ppmw). We are proposing that the
exemptions for ``vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP
only as impurities'' and ``pressure vessels designed to operate in
excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the
atmosphere'' listed in the definition of ``storage tank'' at 40 CFR
63.2550(i) do not apply for storage tanks in ethylene oxide service.
For the ethylene oxide equipment leak provisions, we are proposing
to define ``in ethylene oxide service'' to mean any equipment that
contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 0.1
percent by weight of ethylene oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all cases, we are proposing that if information exists that
suggests ethylene oxide could be present in these processes, then the
process equipment is considered to be in ethylene oxide service unless
sampling and analysis is performed to demonstrate that the process
equipment does not meet the definition of being in ethylene oxide
service. We are proposing sampling and analysis procedures at 40 CFR
63.2492. Examples of information that could suggest ethylene oxide is
present in a process stream include calculations based on safety data
sheets, material balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test
results provided the results are still relevant to the current
operating conditions.
Based on the proposed applicability thresholds, we expect that
eight facilities will be affected by the proposed ethylene oxide-
specific standards. Five of these eight facilities will be subject to
the process vent and/or storage tank provisions; specifically, three
facilities have process vents in ethylene oxide service and three
facilities have storage tanks in ethylene oxide service. All eight
facilities are expected to be subject to the equipment leak provisions.
To reduce risks from process vents in ethylene oxide service, we
are proposing to either reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by (1)
venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that
reduces ethylene oxide by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by
weight, or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent,
or to less than 5 pounds per year for all combined process vents; or
(2) venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare meeting
the proposed flare operating requirements discussed in section IV.A.1
of this preamble. To reduce risks from storage tanks in ethylene oxide
service, we are proposing to either reduce emissions of ethylene oxide
by (1) venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control
device that reduces ethylene oxide by greater than or equal to 99.9
percent by weight or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each
storage tank vent; or (2) venting emissions through a closed-vent
system to a flare meeting the proposed flare operating requirements
discussed in section IV.A.1 of this preamble. Additionally, we propose
removing the option to allow use of a design evaluation in lieu of
performance testing to demonstrate compliance for both process vents
and storage tanks in ethylene oxide service to ensure that the required
level of control is achieved. We are also proposing that after
promulgation of the rule, owners or operators that choose to control
emissions with a non-flare control device conduct an initial
performance test according to 40 CFR 63.997 and 40 CFR 63.2450(g) on
each existing control device in ethylene oxide service and on each
newly installed control device in ethylene oxide service to verify
performance at the required level of control. Subsequently, we propose
that owners or operators conduct periodic performance testing on non-
flare control devices in ethylene oxide service every 5 years.
As previously stated, we are aware that MON facilities with
ethylene oxide emissions from process vents and storage tanks commonly
use scrubbers to control emissions. Based on our knowledge of these
scrubbers, there is a difference in how these scrubbers operate in
order to achieve high control efficiencies versus how a normal wet
scrubber operates. The higher removal efficiency of ethylene oxide in
these scrubbers is based on the absorption of ethylene oxide into the
scrubber water and then conversion of ethylene oxide to ethylene
glycol. This conversion is dependent on several factors--maintaining an
acid environment to catalyze the reaction and having enough residence
time in the scrubber for the reaction to occur. We are proposing
continuous monitoring of operating parameters for these scrubbers to
ensure that the factors needed for the reaction to occur are met,
namely liquid-to-gas ratio, pressure drop across the scrubber, liquid
feed pressure, liquid temperature, and pH. However, we are aware that
several other parameters may also be important to monitor, such as
maximum liquid flow rate, tank levels for the reactant and solution
feed tanks, and ethylene glycol content of the tanks. We are requesting
comment on the operating parameters we have proposed for these
scrubbers and whether these additional operating parameters are
necessary, and if so, how these parameter limits should be set and at
what frequency they should be monitored.
To reduce risks from equipment leaks, we identified two options
that we are co-proposing for controlling emissions from MON equipment
in ethylene oxide service, referred to here as equipment leak Control
Option 1 and equipment leak Control Option 2. These two co-proposed
options, presented in Table 6 and summarized here, provide a level of
control beyond what is being proposed in the technology review for all
MON equipment in HAP service.
In equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 1, we are proposing
that all light liquid pumps in ethylene oxide service be monitored
monthly at a leak definition of 1,000 ppm, and when a leak is detected,
it be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar
days after it is detected. Additionally, under co-proposed Control
Option 1, we are proposing that the leak repair exemption available for
pumps at 40 CFR 63.1026(b)(3), 40 CFR 63.163(c)(3), and 40 CFR
65.107(b)(3) would not apply to equipment in ethylene oxide service.
Also, as part of co-proposed Control Option 1, we are proposing that
all gas/vapor and light liquid connectors in ethylene oxide service be
monitored annually at a leak definition of 500 ppm, and when a leak is
detected, it be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15
calendar days after it is detected.
As an alternative to Control Option 1, we are co-proposing
equipment leak Control Option 2. Under co-proposed Control Option 2, we
are proposing that more stringent equipment leak standards would apply
to the facilities with a MIR greater than 100-in-1 million after
imposition of the proposed standards for process vents and storage
tanks, as determined by this risk analysis (i.e., Lanxess Corporation
and
[[Page 69216]]
Huntsman Performance), and detailed in Appendix 10 of the document
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking. For these two facilities, pumps in ethylene oxide
service would be required to be leakless (i.e., have zero emissions)
and monitored annually to verify there are no emissions. Additionally,
valves in ethylene oxide service would be required to either be
leakless and monitored annually, or not be leakless and be monitored
quarterly. For pumps and valves in ethylene oxide service, equipment is
considered leaking if an instrument reading above background is found.
Furthermore, at the two higher risk facilities with a MIR greater than
100-in-1 million, connectors in ethylene oxide service would be
monitored monthly at a leak definition of 100 ppm. We are proposing
that when a leak is detected, it be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, and a first
attempt at repair be made no later than 5 calendar days after the leak
is detected. As part of co-proposed Control Option 2, all other
facilities with MON equipment in ethylene oxide service would be
subject to the standards previously described in equipment leak co-
proposed Control Option 1.
We solicit comment on each of the proposed requirements for process
vents, storage tanks, and equipment in ethylene oxide service.
Table 6--Summary of Equipment Leak Co-Proposed Control Options for MON Facilities Emitting Ethylene Oxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Leak Control Applicability Control option description
Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................... MON equipment in ethylene Light Liquid Pumps........ Require leak definition of
oxide service. 1,000 ppm, monthly
monitoring.
Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid Require leak definition of
Connectors. 500 ppm, annual
monitoring.
2.......................... MON equipment in ethylene Light Liquid Pumps........ Require pumps to have zero
oxide service at the two Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid emissions (e.g.,
facilities with cancer Connectors. leakless), annual
risks >=100-in-1 million monitoring.
(specifically, Lanxess Require leak definition of
Corporation and Huntsman 100 ppm, monthly
Performance). monitoring.
Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid Require valves to have
Valves. zero emissions (e.g.,
leakless) with annual
monitoring or non-
leakless with quarterly
monitoring.
MON equipment in ethylene Light Liquid Pumps........ Require leak definition of
oxide service at all other Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid 1,000 ppm, monthly
facilities (excluding Connectors. monitoring.
Lanxess Corporation and Require leak definition of
Huntsman Performance). 500 ppm, annual
monitoring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in considering possible control options for equipment
leaks, it is important to understand the uncertainties related to the
modeled ethylene oxide equipment leak emissions. For Lanxess
Corporation, the modeled equipment leak emissions were our best
estimate, using component counts from the facility's title V permit
application and emission factors, and were not based on measured
emissions. Notably, this calculated emission estimate was higher than
what was reported to the 2014 NEI and the 2014 Toxics Release
Inventory. We used the highest emission estimate in our model run to be
conservatively health protective but recognize that this may result in
an overestimation of risk. For Huntsman Performance, the modeled
equipment leak emissions were also our best estimate, using calculated
emissions that were reported to the 2014 NEI, and were also not based
on measured emissions. Although Huntsman Performance did report their
equipment leak emissions, we do not know which components (e.g., pumps,
valves, connectors, etc.) were responsible for these emissions, which
introduces uncertainty regarding the effect that the proposed equipment
leak controls would have on reducing equipment leak emissions. At
Huntsman Performance, we are also aware that the ethylene oxide
equipment leak emissions are not entirely from MON processes; however,
we did not have enough information to distinguish between emissions
attributed to MON processes versus other processes (e.g., 40 CFR part
63, subparts H and PPP). Therefore, the risk for this facility is
likely biased high due to our inability to distinguish between co-
located emissions. For both Lanxess Corporation and Huntsman
Performance, because the ethylene oxide equipment leak emissions were
derived from engineering calculations and are not based on measured
values, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the appropriateness
of the proposed LDAR and control provisions for light liquid pumps,
gas/vapor and light liquid connectors, and gas/vapor and light liquid
valves. As such, modeled risk reductions may not accurately reflect the
actual effects of implementing the proposed controls. Furthermore, we
have limited information regarding the use of leakless valves on
streams that are in ethylene oxide service and, therefore, are
soliciting comment on the applicability of these valves for MON
equipment in ethylene oxide service.
3. Determination of Risk Acceptability
As noted in sections II.A and III.A of this preamble and in the
Benzene NESHAP, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2)
using a two-step approach, with an analytical first step to determine
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) of
approximately 1 in 10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). A
MIR of 1-in-10,000 (i.e., 100-in-1 million) alone does not constitute a
bright line for making a risk acceptability determination. The level of
the MIR is only one factor weighed in determining acceptability of
risk. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively
less acceptable under CAA section 112
[[Page 69217]]
and are weighed with other health risk measures and information,
including risk estimation uncertainty, in making an overall judgment on
acceptability.
In some cases, the health risk measures and information taken
together may provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of
risk in the exposed population than that provided by the MIR alone. As
such, we considered the results of the risk assessment (including the
risk estimation uncertainty) and evaluated available control
technologies and other measures (including the controls reviewed under
the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to
reduce the risks due to emissions of ethylene oxide from process vents,
storage tanks, and equipment leaks without considering costs or
technological feasibility. Additionally, as described previously in
section IV.C.2, we are co-proposing two options for control of ethylene
oxide emissions from equipment leaks (e.g., co-proposed Control Options
1 and 2). Therefore, we present the risk impacts using health risk
measures and information, including the MIR, cancer incidence,
population exposed to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million, and
associated uncertainty in emissions estimates after incremental
application of controls for storage tanks, process vents, and either
co-proposed equipment leak Control Option 1 or 2, in Table 7 and in the
discussion below.
Table 7--Nationwide Risk Impacts After Implementation of Proposed Controls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
-------------------------------- Cancer
Control scenario MIR (x-in-1 million) >=1-in-1 >100-in-1 incidence Uncertainty
million million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Control Baseline..................... 2,000 (Lanxess, 300 2,900,000 18,000 0.4 ................................
(Huntsman).
+ Storage Tank Controls.................. 500 (Lanxess), 300 2,600,000 1,500 0.1 The effect of process vent and
(Huntsman). storage tank controls on
emissions is well understood
and generally certain.
+ Process Vent Controls.................. 400 (Lanxess), 300 2,400,000 780 0.1
(Huntsman).
Either, + Equipment Leak Control Option 1 200 (Lanxess), 300 2,300,000 300 0.1 Fugitive emissions estimates are
(Huntsman). uncertain and based on
engineering calculations.
Therefore, there is uncertainty
regarding the relevance of the
proposed equipment leak
controls (Lanxess, Huntsman).
Modeled fugitive emissions may
be subject to other NESHAP
which likely results in an
overestimation of risk
(Huntsman).
Or, + Equipment Leak Control Option 2.... 100 (Lanxess), 200 2,100,000 30 0.1
(Huntsman).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the post-control risks are greater than 100-in-1 million
(i.e., 200 to 300-in-1 million), due to the inherent health protective
nature of our risk assessment methods and the uncertainties in this
assessment, we believe that this risk assessment is more likely to
overestimate rather than underestimate the risks. A brief discussion of
the health protective aspects of the assessment, including
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships was
covered in section III.C.8. A more thorough discussion of these
uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
We note that the modeled risks due to emissions of ethylene oxide
are sensitive to the URE applied. In this assessment, the modeled risks
are largely driven by use of an EPA URE for ethylene oxide that was
updated in December 2016 (i.e., 5 x 10-3 per ug/m\3\) on the
basis of new human data.34 35 This updated URE is about 60
times greater than the value used previously by EPA in its risk
assessments (i.e., California EPA URE of 8.8 x 10-5 per ug/
m\3\, based on animal data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ U.S. EPA. Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Ethylene Oxide (CASRN 75-21-8) In Support of Summary Information on
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). December 2016. EPA/
635/R-16/350Fa. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/1025tr.pdf.
\35\ SAB. (2015). Science Advisory Board Review of the EPA's
Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide:
Revised external review draft--August 2014 [EPA Report]. (EPA-SAB-
15-012). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, SAB. https://yosemite.epa.gov/
sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/
BD2B2DB4F84146A585257E9A0070E655/$File/EPA-SAB-15-012+unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UREs we use in our risk assessments generally provide an upper
bound estimate of risk \36\ to be health protective in light of dose-
response modeling uncertainties. As noted above and in Section
III.C.8.d, there are uncertainties inherent in all risk assessments,
including uncertainties in the development of dose-response values.
Consistent with EPA SAB recommendations,\37\ where a HAP is a risk
driver, as is the case with ethylene oxide for this risk assessment, we
examine the underlying technical information, including sources of risk
estimation uncertainties. To better characterize the risks, we reviewed
EPA's 2016 ethylene oxide dose-response assessment and the
uncertainties in the dose-response relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\37\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the EPA's 2016 ethylene oxide URE, two aspects of uncertainty
stand out as potentially contributing to the conservative (i.e., health
protective) nature of the final 2016 URE. This is documented in the
memorandum titled Sensitivity of Ethylene Oxide Risk Estimates to Dose-
Response Model Selection, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, and as discussed further below.
[[Page 69218]]
First, the updated IRIS URE for ethylene oxide is based on the
upper confidence limit on the slope of the dose response curve.
However, according to the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment, when human data are available, it is reasonable to consider
the central estimate rather than upper confidence limit for a URE.\38\
In the case of ethylene oxide, we do have human health data and,
therefore, it is reasonable to consider the central estimate. The
central estimate of the URE for ethylene oxide is 3 times lower than
the upper confidence limit, as documented in the memorandum titled
Sensitivity of Ethylene Oxide Risk Estimates to Dose-Response Model
Selection, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment
Forum. U.S. EPA. Washington, DC. March 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we note that several dose-response models were considered
during the 2016 IRIS assessment for two types of cancer: Breast cancer
and lymphoid cancer. Considering multiple models ensures the selected
model provides the best fit to the exposure data and helps quantify and
characterize model and statistical uncertainty. The choice of model
also has significant implications for the URE, particularly at the low
end of the dose-response range.
With regard to lymphoid cancer, the selected model provided the
best fit and satisfied all SAB recommendations.\39\ However, there were
statistical challenges associated with modeling the data. Therefore, in
developing the dose-response value, the EPA considered other lymphoid
cancer models that provided reasonably good fits to the exposure data
and met some, but not all, of the SAB modeling criteria
recommendations. For purposes of characterizing the uncertainty around
the final 2016 IRIS URE, it is useful to consider the extent to which
choosing an alternative lymphoid cancer model would have affected the
value. In fact, one of the alternative lymphoid cancer models evaluated
by the EPA would result in a URE 2 to 3 times lower than the IRIS URE,
as documented in the memorandum titled Sensitivity of Ethylene Oxide
Risk Estimates to Dose-Response Model Selection, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.\40\ For breast cancer, there was a high
level of statistical certainty with the model selected, and, therefore,
we did not include alternative models in this uncertainty discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ SAB advice on modeling criteria included (1) the
recommendation to prioritize models with good fits in the low
exposure range (e.g., spline models), (2) preference for using
continuous individual-level exposure data over categorical results,
and (3) selecting models that have a dose-response shape that is
both biologically plausible and consistent with observed data.
\40\ The memorandum notes that higher estimates of risk were
obtained using other models that statistically fit the data. There
were limitations with these models and they were not considered in
the uncertainty analysis. However, a comprehensive analysis of
alternative models would likely include some risk estimates higher
than the IRIS unit risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA concludes that these uncertainties, noted in the 2016 IRIS
assessment, provide important context for interpreting whether risks
remaining post-control can be considered acceptable. In particular, we
note that the central estimate compared to the upper confidence limit
could result in a URE 3 times lower than the IRIS URE and an
alternative dose-response model for lymphoid cancer could result in a
URE 2-3 times lower. While EPA followed SAB recommendations regarding
lymphoid model choice, we acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in this
model selection, which is important for interpreting risk results. In
fact, both the central estimate and an alternative dose-response model
combined could result in a URE 5 times lower. This would reduce
potential post-control risks to 60- to 100-in-1 million (from 200- to
300-in-1 million).
The updated URE was used in EPA's 2014 National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA). In September 2018, the ACC submitted a Request for
Correction under the Information Quality Act asking that the ``NATA
risk estimates for E.O.\41\ should be withdrawn and corrected to
reflect scientifically-supportable risk values''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In this instance, ``E.O.'' refers to ``ethylene oxide.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the ACC's Request for Correction, in the HCl Production RTR
proposed rule, the EPA requested comment on the use of the updated
ethylene oxide URE for regulatory purposes (84 FR 1584; February 4,
2019). The comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 26,
2019, and the Agency received a number of comments on the updated
ethylene oxide URE and its use for regulatory purposes. Those comments
are included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0417, and the EPA is
incorporating those comments into the docket for this rulemaking.
Commenters provided comments both in support of and opposed to the 2016
updated URE for ethylene oxide and its use for regulatory purposes. One
commenter noted that the application of the URE would have wide-ranging
implications on regulatory decision making. Commenters supporting the
use of the 2016 updated URE noted that the IRIS assessment for ethylene
oxide used the best available science, underwent review by Agency and
non-Agency experts, as well as public review, and was published in a
peer-reviewed journal. Commenters opposing the use of the 2016 updated
URE noted concerns with the model and variables used to estimate pre-
1978 worker exposure estimates (and suggested an alternative model and
alternative pre-1978 worker exposure estimates that would reflect
higher pre-1978 exposures and affect the final URE), and another
commenter indicated that they are developing their own cancer dose-
response value for ethylene oxide.
In June 2019, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
issued a draft document for public review (``Ethylene Oxide
Carcinogenic Dose-Response Assessment''), which concluded that
``USEPA's ethylene oxide inhalation URF \42\ is not adequately
supported by scientific data'' and instead proposed a unit risk factor
(URF) of 1.4 x 10-6 per ug/m\3\. Specifically, TCEQ
disagreed with the EPA's model selection as the basis for deriving a
URE. TCEQ highlighted uncertainties in the URE arising from what it
considered to be errors in the assumptions and calculations used to
determine the best model fit of the data. TCEQ's concerns with the
EPA's URE derivation have not been peer reviewed and the public comment
period closed on September 26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ In this instance, ``URF'' is intended to be functionally
equivalent to the EPA's unit risk estimate for ethylene oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the robustness of the comments received and their
relevance to this rulemaking, the Agency will consider those comments
in the final rule for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
source category. In this proposed rule, we are requesting any
additional comments on the use of the 2016 updated URE for ethylene
oxide for regulatory purposes beyond those already received for the HCl
Production RTR proposed rule (84 FR 1584-1597; February 4, 2019), as
well as comments on the use of an alternative URE for ethylene oxide in
the final rule for this source category. The EPA believes it is
reasonable to assume that, allowing for the uncertainties in the URE,
estimated risks for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
source category could be lower, even potentially lower than the 100-in-
1 million benchmark.
[[Page 69219]]
It is also important to note that there is considerable uncertainty
regarding the estimated equipment leak emissions that are responsible
for the remaining modeled risk. As described previously in section
IV.C.2 and summarized here, the estimated ethylene oxide equipment leak
emissions are based on engineering calculations, not actual measured
emissions, and, therefore, it is uncertain whether the proposed
controls are appropriate for the actual source(s) of fugitive emissions
at these facilities. Furthermore, at Lanxess Corporation, a
conservatively high equipment leak emissions estimate was used, and at
Huntsman Performance, equipment leak emissions are also thought to be
overestimated due to knowledge that the modeled emissions are not
entirely from MON equipment. Due to these emissions uncertainties, the
post-control MIRs of 300-in-1 million at Huntsman Performance and 200-
in-1 million at Lanxess Corporation are likely biased high; the actual
MIRs would be expected to be lower at both facilities. Given that the
number of people estimated to have a cancer risk greater than 100-in-1
million would be reduced from 18,000 to 300, the incidence would be
reduced from 0.4 to 0.1, and considering that the MIR is expected to be
lower than 300-in-1 million, we propose that, after application of the
ethylene oxide-specific controls for process vents, storage tanks, and
equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 1, risks would be acceptable.
Alternatively, additional equipment leak controls (e.g., beyond
equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 1) could be applied to the
two highest risk facilities to further reduce risks. After application
of the ethylene oxide-specific controls for process vents, storage
tanks, and equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 2, ethylene oxide
emissions would be reduced by 94-percent for the source category, the
estimated MIR would be reduced from 2,000-in-1 million to 200-in-1
million at Huntsman Performance and 100-in-1 million at Lanxess
Corporation, the number of people estimated to have a cancer risk
greater than 100-in-1 million would be reduced from 18,000 to 30, and
the incidence would be reduced from 0.4 to 0.1.
Finally, we note that the proposed control measures provide for a
significant risk reduction. Application of the ethylene oxide-specific
controls for process vents and storage tanks would reduce ethylene
oxide emissions by an estimated 89 percent for the source category, and
the estimated MIR would be reduced from 2,000-in-1 million to 400-in-1
million at Lanxess Corporation, and the next highest estimated MIR
would be 300-in-1 million at Huntsman Performance. In both cases, the
remaining risk is primarily from equipment leak emissions of ethylene
oxide. Subsequent application of equipment leak co-proposed Control
Option 1 would further reduce ethylene oxide emissions by 4 percent,
for a total estimated 93-percent reduction in ethylene oxide emissions
for the source category, with the MIR at Lanxess Corporation being
further reduced to 200-in-1 million and the MIR at Huntsman Performance
remaining at 300-in-1 million.
In summary, after implementation of the proposed controls for
process vents and storage tanks at MON facilities emitting ethylene
oxide, as well as implementation of either of the co-proposed control
options for equipment leaks, and considering all of the health risk
information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties
regarding the equipment leak emissions, the uncertainties inherent in
all risk assessments (i.e., the emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships) and the EPA's use
of the updated URE for ethylene oxide (which is developed to be health
protective but, given uncertainties in the value, could be as much as 5
times lower), the EPA proposes that the resulting risks would be
acceptable for this source category. We are soliciting comment on which
of the two ethylene oxide equipment leak co-proposed control options
should be implemented in the final rulemaking in order to ensure that
risks from the source category are acceptable.
4. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
The second step in the residual risk decision framework is
determination of whether the emission standards proposed to achieve an
acceptable risk level would protect public health with an ample margin
of safety, or whether more stringent emission standards would be
required. In making this determination, we considered the estimate of
health risk and other health information, along with additional factors
relating to the appropriate level of control, including costs and
economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties,
and other relevant factors, consistent with the approach of the 1989
Benzene NESHAP. Table 8 of this preamble presents the summary of costs
and ethylene oxide emission reductions we estimated for the proposed
control options. For details on the assumptions and methodologies used
in the costs and impacts analyses, see the technical memoranda titled
Analysis of Control Options for Storage Tanks and Process Vents
Emitting Ethylene Oxide Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category and Analysis of Control Options for
Equipment Leaks at Processes that use Ethylene Oxide Located in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which are
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 8--Nationwide Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for Process Vents,
Storage Tanks, and Equipment in Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Service \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Total capital Total EtO emission effectiveness
Control option investment annualized reductions ($/ton EtO)
($) costs ($/yr) (tpy) \2\ \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--Process Vent Controls........................ 2,180,000 914,000 1.2 783,000
B--Storage Tank Controls........................ 466,000 796,000 8.6 93,100
C--Equipment Leak co-proposed Control Option 1.. 76,000 48,000 3.6 13,200
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total (A + B + C)........................... 2,720,000 1,760,000 13.3 132,000
D--Equipment Leak co-proposed Control Option 2.. 673,000 148,000 4.5 33,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total (A + B + D)........................... 3,320,000 1,860,000 14.2 131,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are calculated for the year 2016 and assume that a scrubber was installed as the control device.
\2\ Reductions shown are based on model plant emission estimates, not on emissions that were modeled in the risk
assessment.
\3\ Cost effectiveness presented is without recovery credits, which represent the savings in product that would
not be lost from equipment leaks.
[[Page 69220]]
For the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and
feasibility of available control technologies that could be applied in
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other
health information considered in the risk acceptability determination
described above. We note that we did not identify any other controls
for ethylene oxide emission sources so we are considering all the
available options to reduce risk.
In the case that we apply the process vent, storage tank, and
equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 1 in the first step (i.e.,
determination of acceptable risk), we considered this option as well as
three additional options in the second step to establish an ample
margin of safety. For the three additional options, first, we
considered implementing equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 2,
which would require that the two facilities with cancer risks greater
than 100-in-1 million comply with more stringent standards. Second, we
considered expanding the applicability of equipment leak co-proposed
Control Option 2 so that the more stringent controls would apply to all
facilities with equipment in ethylene oxide service, regardless of
cancer risks. Third, we considered the options identified in the
technology review (i.e., controls to equipment leaks for MON equipment
not in ethylene oxide service and heat exchange systems). The ample
margin of safety analysis for these options is discussed below.
First, in the case of implementing the ethylene oxide equipment
leak co-proposed Control Option 2, we compared the costs of co-proposed
Control Option 1 to co-proposed Control Option 2 ($76,000 vs. $673,000
total capital investment; $48,000 vs. $148,000 total annualized cost).
From the ethylene oxide equipment leak co-proposed Option 1 to Option
2, the MIR would be reduced from 300-in-1 million to 200-in-1 million,
the population exposed to cancer risks >=1-in-1 million would be
reduced from 2,300,000 to 2,100,000, and the incidence would remain
unchanged at 0.1.
Second, in the case that we expand the applicability of equipment
leak co-proposed Control Option 2 so that the more stringent controls
would apply to all facilities with equipment in ethylene oxide service,
costs were also found to be considerably higher compared to ethylene
oxide equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 1 ($76,000 vs.
$1,600,000 total capital investment; $48,000 vs. $300,000 total
annualized cost). The estimated ethylene oxide emissions reductions are
5.8 tons per year with a cost effectiveness of $51,000 per ton of
ethylene oxide. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced by 14,000, but there are no
additional reductions in the MIR or incidence when expanding these more
stringent standards to apply to all facilities with equipment in
ethylene oxide service. We solicit comment on whether we should apply
the requirements of equipment leak co-proposed Control Option 2 that
are specific to the two highest risk facilities more broadly, so that
they apply to all facilities with equipment in ethylene oxide service.
Third, we considered control options identified in the technology
review (section IV.D of this preamble), which apply to all HAP and are
not specific to ethylene oxide. These options include controls for (1)
equipment leaks for MON equipment not in ethylene oxide service
(options 1 through 4), and (2) heat exchangers. For controls for
equipment leaks for MON equipment not in ethylene oxide service (option
1, described in section IV.D.1 of this preamble) and heat exchangers,
while cost-effective, neither lowered the source category MIR,
incidence, or population exposed to cancer risks >=1-in-1 million. For
equipment leak controls for MON equipment not in ethylene oxide
service, options 2, 3, and 4 (described in section IV.D.1 of this
preamble) were not cost-effective and did not reduce the source
category MIR, incidence, or population exposed to risks >=1-in-1
million, with the exception of the equipment leak option 3 controls
which lowered the population exposed to cancer risks >=1-in-1 million
by approximately 250,000 people.
Based on our ample margin of safety analysis, including all health
information and the associated cost and feasibility as discussed above,
we propose that the requirements that we are proposing to achieve
acceptable risks would also provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. We are soliciting comment on which of the
available control options should be applied in order to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
5. Adverse Environmental Effects
We do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a
result of HAP emissions from this source category, and we are proposing
that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent,
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the MON are process vents,
storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater streams, and
heat exchange systems. MON processes can either be batch or continuous
operations. Batch operations mean a non-continuous operation involving
intermittent or discontinuous feed into equipment and, in general,
involve the emptying of the equipment after the operation ceases and
prior to beginning a new operation. To inform our technology reviews
for these emissions sources, we reviewed the EPA's Reasonably Available
Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) clearinghouse and regulatory development
efforts published after the MON for similar sources. (See the
memorandum titled Review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse Database
for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.) After reviewing
information from the afore-mentioned sources, we have identified
certain developments in practices, processes, or control technologies
to reduce emissions from some of the sources of HAP emissions regulated
by the MON. We then evaluated the impacts of applying these
developments to the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source
category and are proposing revisions to the MON for equipment leaks and
heat exchange systems pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
1. Equipment Leaks
Emissions of HAP (e.g., beyond ethylene oxide) from equipment leaks
occur in the form of gases or liquids that escape to the atmosphere
through many types of connection points (e.g., threaded fittings) or
through the moving parts of certain types of process equipment during
normal operation. Equipment regulated by the MON includes pumps,
compressors, agitators, PRDs, sampling collection systems, open-ended
valves or lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems that
contain or contact material that is 5 percent by weight or more of
organic HAP, operate 300 hours per year or more, and are not in vacuum
service.
Depending on the type of equipment, the equipment leak requirements
of the MON provide the option of meeting the
[[Page 69221]]
control requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts H (National Emission
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks), or
UU (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2
Standards), or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F (the Consolidated Air Rule for
Equipment Leaks) for existing MON processes and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU, or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, for new MON processes. The equipment
leak requirements vary by equipment (component) type but require LDAR
using monitoring with EPA Method 21 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60
at certain frequencies (e.g., monthly, quarterly, every 2 quarters,
annually) and leak definitions (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 10,000 ppm)
if the component is in either gas and vapor service or in light liquid
service. The LDAR requirements for components in heavy liquid service
require sensory monitoring and the use of EPA Method 21 monitoring if a
leak is identified.
The practices, processes, and control technologies considered
during MACT development for equipment leaks at MON facilities included
LDAR. To identify developments for the technology review, we reviewed
the control options that were considered for the proposed MON in 2003.
As mentioned previously in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, the EPA
conducted a general analysis in the 2011 equipment leaks study \43\ to
identify the latest developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies for equipment leaks at chemical manufacturing facilities
and petroleum refineries and estimated the impacts of applying those
practices, processes, and control technologies to model facilities. We
also used this 2011 equipment leaks analysis as a reference for
conducting the technology review for equipment leaks at MON facilities.
Additionally, we evaluated other federal regulations (i.e., the
finalized Petroleum Refinery Sector MACT,\44\ NSPS subpart VVa,\45\ and
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP \46\) and state regulations (e.g., the
Texas fugitive emissions rules applicable to petrochemical processes
47 48) as part of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Hancy. 2011. Memorandum from Hancy, C., RTI International
to Howard, J., EPA/OAQPS. Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques
for Equipment Leaks. December 21, 2011. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0869.
\44\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC: National Emission Standards for
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries.
\45\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa: Standards of Performance for
Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry for Which Construction, Reconstructions, or
Modification Commenced After November 7, 2006.
\46\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart H: National Emission Standards for
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks.
\47\ 30 TAC 115, subchapter D, Division 3: Control of Air
Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds; Petroleum Refining,
Natural Gas Processing, and Petrochemical Processes; Fugitive
Emission Control in Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline
Processing, and Petrochemical Processes in Ozone Nonattainment
Areas.
\48\ 30 TAC 115, subchapter H, Division 3: Control of Air
Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds; Highly-Reactive Volatile
Organic Compounds; Fugitive Emissions (referred to as the TX HRVOC
rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our technology review for equipment leaks of HAP (e.g., beyond
ethylene oxide) identified several developments in LDAR practices and
processes: Option 1, lowering the leak definition for pumps in light
liquid service at existing batch processes from 10,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm
with monthly monitoring; option 2, lowering the leak definition for
pumps in light liquid service at existing batch processes from 10,000
ppm to 500 ppm and at existing continuous processes from 1,000 ppm to
500 ppm with monthly monitoring; option 3, requiring monitoring of
connectors in gas and vapor service or light liquid service at a leak
definition of 500 ppm with monitoring every 8 years; and option 4,
lowering the leak definition for valves in gas and vapor service or
light liquid service from 500 ppm to 100 ppm at both batch and
continuous processes with quarterly monitoring. For all other component
types, we did not identify developments in LDAR practices and
processes.
Emissions reductions were estimated for the new developments that
we identified using component counts and emission factors. The
component counts were derived using data from the original MON rule,
which included model component counts for 224 facilities, with 167
using batch processes, 57 using continuous processes, and three not
having information. The batch facilities contained 1,049 batch
processes, or an average of 6.3 per facility. The continuous facilities
contained 88 continuous processes, or an average of 1.5 per facility.
These values were scaled to estimate the number of batch and continuous
processes for the current count of 201 facilities, resulting in 943
batch processes and 79 continuous processes nationwide. The number of
nationwide processes was then multiplied by the component counts to
estimate the nationwide component counts. Subsequently, baseline
emissions and emissions after implementation of the controls for each
component were calculated for continuous and batch processes using the
nationwide component counts for continuous and batch processes derived
from the 2003 MON analysis and emission factors and leak frequencies
for the chemical manufacturing industry from the 2011 equipment leaks
study.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Hancy. 2011. Memorandum from Hancy, C., RTI International
to Howard, J., EPA/OAQPS. Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques
for Equipment Leaks. December 21, 2011. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs were then calculated for the baseline and control options,
which reflect the cost to implement an LDAR program for each component.
Note that the difference between the costs for the baseline and control
options is the incremental cost to comply with the controls. Costs were
calculated for the year 2016, and capital costs were annualized using a
5-percent interest rate. Furthermore, because the control options
result in chemicals in process lines not leaking and, therefore, not
being lost, we present costs both with and without this consideration.
To estimate savings in chemicals not being emitted (i.e., lost) due to
the equipment leak control options, we applied a recovery credit of
$900 per ton of VOC to the VOC emission reductions in the analyses. The
$900 per ton recovery credit has historically been used by the EPA to
represent the variety of chemicals that are used as reactants and
produced at synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities,\50\
however, we recognize that this value is from a 2007 analysis and may
be outdated. Therefore, we solicit comment on the availability of more
recent information to potentially update the value used in this
analysis to estimate the recovery credits. The complete cost
calculation methodology is documented in the memorandum, Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks Located in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ U.S. EPA. 2007. Standards of Performance for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
Petroleum Refineries (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/E7-13203/standards-of-performance-for-equipment-leaks-of-voc-in-the-synthetic-organic-chemicals-manufacturing). EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated the VOC and HAP cost effectiveness by dividing the
incremental annual costs by the emissions reductions. Table 9 of this
preamble presents the nationwide costs and impacts for the suite of
equipment leak control options considered. See the technical memorandum
titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology
[[Page 69222]]
Review for Equipment Leaks Located in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and
methodologies used in this analysis.
Based on the costs and emission reductions for each of the options,
we determined that option 1 is a cost-effective strategy for further
reducing HAP emissions from equipment leaks from MON equipment not in
ethylene oxide service, and we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2480(b)(6)
and (c)(10) to revise the MON for equipment leaks to lower the leak
definition for pumps in light liquid service at existing batch
processes from 10,000 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv with monthly monitoring,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are also clarifying at 40 CFR
63.2480(b)(7) and (c)(11) that you must initially monitor for leaks
within 30 days after initial startup of the equipment. We solicit
comment on these proposed revisions. Considering the high cost per ton
estimate, we determined that equipment leak options 2, 3, and 4 are not
cost effective for the entire source category; therefore, we are not
proposing to revise the MON to reflect the requirements of these
options pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Table 9--Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for Equipment Leaks for MON Equipment Not in Ethylene Oxide Service \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total annualized annualized VOC HAP VOC cost VOC cost HAP cost HAP cost
Control option capital costs w/o costs with emission emission effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness
investment credits \2\ credits \2\ reductions reductions w/o credits with credits w/o credits with credits
($) ($/yr) ($/yr) (tpy) (tpy) \2\ ($/ton) \2\ ($/ton) \2\ ($/ton) \2\ ($/ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................. 863,100 156,600 85,200 79.3 7.93 1,980 1,075 19,760 10,760
2............................................................. 1,416,800 303,000 223,900 87.9 8.79 3,450 2,550 34,480 25,480
3............................................................. 9,326,800 1,381,900 910,600 524 52.4 2,640 1,740 26,390 17,390
4............................................................. 650,800 116,300 93,300 25.5 2.55 4,560 3,660 45,630 36,630
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are calculated for the year 2016.
\2\ Recovery credits represent the cost savings in chemicals not being emitted (i.e., lost) due to the equipment leak options.
2. Heat Exchange Systems
Heat exchangers are devices or collections of devices used to
transfer heat from process fluids to another process fluid (typically
water) without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the
cooling fluid (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger). There are two types
of heat exchange systems: Closed-loop recirculation systems and once-
through systems. Closed-loop recirculation systems use a cooling tower
to cool the heated water leaving the heat exchanger and then return the
newly cooled water to the heat exchanger for reuse. Once-through
systems typically use surface freshwater (e.g., from rivers) as the
influent cooling fluid to the heat exchangers, and the heated water
leaving the heat exchangers is then discharged from the facility. At
times, the internal tubing material of a heat exchanger can corrode or
crack, allowing some process fluids to mix or become entrained with the
cooling water. Pollutants in the process fluids may subsequently be
released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is
exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or
trenches/ponds in a once-through system). The term ``heat exchange
system'' is not defined in the MON; therefore, we are proposing a
definition for this term at 40 CFR 63.2550(i) that would apply only to
the MON standards. We are proposing to define ``heat exchange system''
as a device or collection of devices used to transfer heat from process
fluids to water without intentional direct contact of the process fluid
with the water (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger) and to transport and/
or cool the water in a closed-loop recirculation system (cooling tower
system) or a once-through system (e.g., river or pond water). For
closed-loop recirculation systems, the heat exchange system consists of
a cooling tower, all miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
process unit heat exchangers that are in organic HAP service, serviced
by that cooling tower, and all water lines to and from these
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit heat
exchangers. For once-through systems, the heat exchange system consists
of all heat exchangers that are in organic HAP service, servicing an
individual miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit
and all water lines to and from these heat exchangers. Sample coolers
or pump seal coolers are not considered heat exchangers for the purpose
of this proposed definition and are not part of the heat exchange
system. Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the
formation of a wastewater.
The MON includes an LDAR program for owners or operators of certain
heat exchange systems which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.104
(National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry). The LDAR
program specifies that heat exchange systems be monitored for leaks of
process fluids into cooling water and that owners or operators take
actions to repair detected leaks within 45 days. Owners or operators
may delay the repair of leaks if they meet the applicable criteria in
40 CFR 63.104. The current MON, for heat exchange systems, allows the
use of any method listed in 40 CFR part 136 for sampling cooling water
for leaks for the HAP listed in Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F,
for recirculating systems and Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for
once-through systems. A leak in the heat exchange system is detected if
the exit mean concentration of HAP (or other representative substance)
in the cooling water is at least 1 ppmw or 10 percent greater than
(using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level of
significance) the entrance mean concentration of HAP (or other
representative substance) in the cooling water. Furthermore, the MON
allows owners or operators to monitor for leaks using a surrogate
indicator of leaks (e.g., ion-specific electrode monitoring, pH,
conductivity), provided that certain criteria in 40 CFR 63.104(c) are
met. The MON initially requires 6 months of monthly monitoring for
existing heat exchange systems. Thereafter, the frequency can be
reduced to quarterly. The leak monitoring frequencies are the same
whether water sampling and analysis or surrogate monitoring is used to
identify leaks.
Our technology review identified one development in LDAR practices
and processes for heat exchange systems, the
[[Page 69223]]
use of the Modified El Paso Method \51\ to monitor for leaks. The
Modified El Paso Method, which is included in the Petroleum Refinery
Sector rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC), was identified in our
review of the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database. It is also
required by the TCEQ for facilities complying with their HRVOC rule
(i.e., 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter H, Division 3). The Modified El
Paso Method measures a larger number of compounds than the current
methods required in the MON and is more effective in identifying leaks.
For heat exchange system LDAR programs, the compliance monitoring
option, leak definition, and frequency of monitoring for leaks are all
important considerations affecting emission reductions by identifying
when there is a leak and when to take corrective actions to repair the
leak. Therefore, we evaluated the Modified El Paso Method for use at
MON facilities, including an assessment of appropriate leak definitions
and monitoring frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The Modified El Paso Method uses a dynamic or flow-through
system for air stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the
resultant off-gases for VOC using a common flame ionization detector
(FID) analyzer. The method is described in detail in Appendix P of
the TCEQ's Sampling Procedures Manual: The Air Stripping Method
(Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions from Water Sources. Appendix P is included
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to identify an appropriate Modified El Paso Method leak
definition for MON facilities, we identified two rules, TCEQ's HRVOC
rule and the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, both of which incorporate
this monitoring method and have leak definitions corresponding to the
use of this methodology. We also reviewed data submitted in response to
a CAA section 114 request for the Ethylene Production RTR where
facilities performed sampling using the Modified El Paso Method.
The Petroleum Refinery Sector rule and TCEQ's HRVOC rule have leak
definitions of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane)
in the stripping gas ranging from 3.1 ppmv to 6.2 ppmv. In addition,
sources subject to the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule may not delay the
repair of leaks for more than 30 days where, during subsequent
monitoring, a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane)
in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv or higher is found. In reviewing the
Ethylene Production RTR CAA section 114 data, a clear delineation in
the hydrocarbon mass emissions data was noticed at 6.1 ppmv of total
strippable hydrocarbon (as methane) in the stripping gas. In addition,
given that both the leak concentration and water recirculation rate of
the heat exchange system are key variables affecting the hydrocarbon
mass emissions from heat exchange systems, the overall Ethylene
Production RTR CAA section 114 data for all heat exchange systems
sampled generally showed lower hydrocarbon mass emissions for leaks at
or below 6.1 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon (as methane) in the
stripping gas compared to leaks found above 6.1 ppmv of total
strippable hydrocarbon (as methane) in the stripping gas. Taking into
account the range of actionable leak definitions in use by other rules
that require use of the Modified El Paso Method currently (i.e., 3.1
ppmv-6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon (as methane) in the
stripping gas), and the magnitude of emissions for leaks of total
strippable hydrocarbon (as methane) in the stripping gas above 6.1 ppmv
compared to other leaks identified in the CAA section 114 sampling
data, we chose to evaluate a leak definition at the upper end of
identified actionable leak definitions in our analysis. Thus, the
Modified El Paso Method leak definition we evaluated was 6.2 ppmv of
total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the
stripping gas for both new and existing heat exchange systems, along
with not allowing delay of repair of leaks for more than 30 days where,
during subsequent monitoring, a total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv or higher is
found.
We determined an appropriate leak monitoring frequency by reviewing
the current monitoring frequencies that MON facilities are subject to,
along with frequencies for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule and the
TCEQ HRVOC rule, and information gathered in the Ethylene Production
RTR CAA section 114 survey. As a first step, we reviewed whether it was
still reasonable to specify more frequent monitoring for a 6-month
period after repair of leaks. Our review of the Ethylene Production RTR
CAA section 114 data showed that no leaks were identified during the 6-
month period post repair for any of the facilities that reported heat
exchange system compliance data that had leaks. Thus, we find that re-
monitoring once after repair of a leak, at the monitoring location
where the leak was identified, is sufficient from a continuous
compliance perspective to demonstrate a successful repair. The
monitoring frequencies currently required by MON for where no leaks are
found were, thus, considered the base frequencies (i.e., quarterly
monitoring for existing and new heat exchange systems). Once we
determined the base frequencies, we next considered more stringent
monitoring frequencies. Both the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, which
includes monthly monitoring for existing sources, under certain
circumstances, and the TCEQ HRVOC rule, which includes continuous
monitoring provisions for existing and new sources, have more stringent
monitoring frequencies. However, the incremental HAP cost effectiveness
to change from quarterly to monthly monitoring and monthly to
continuous monitoring was found to be $40,000/ton and $500,000/ton,
respectively. We conclude that these costs are not reasonable for MON
facilities. Thus, we chose to evaluate quarterly monitoring for
existing and new heat exchange systems (i.e., the base monitoring
frequency currently in the rule).
Based on this technology review, we identified the following
control option for heat exchanger systems as a development in practice
that can be implemented at a reasonable cost: Quarterly monitoring for
existing and new heat exchange systems (after an initial 6 months of
monthly monitoring) with the Modified El Paso Method and a leak
definition of 6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration
(as methane) in the stripping gas.
We then estimated the impacts of this control option assuming that
all 201 MON facilities would be affected by requiring the use of the
Modified El Paso Method. As part of our analysis, we assumed owners or
operators conducting quarterly monitoring for three or more of these
heat exchange systems would elect to purchase a stripping column and
FID analyzer and perform in-house Modified El Paso monitoring (because
the total annualized costs for in-house Modified El Paso monitoring are
less than the costs for contracted services). In addition, we assumed
repairs could be performed by plugging a specific heat exchanger tube,
and if a heat exchanger is leaking to the extent that it needs to be
replaced, then it is effectively at the end of its useful life.
Therefore, we determined that the cost of replacing a heat exchanger is
an operational cost that would be incurred by the facility as a result
of routine maintenance and equipment replacement, and it is not
attributable to the control option.
Table 10 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for
requiring owners or operators to use the Modified El Paso Method and
repair leaks of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane)
in the stripping gas of 6.2
[[Page 69224]]
ppmv or greater. See the technical memorandum titled Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems Located
in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking, for details on
the assumptions and methodologies used in this analysis.
Based on the costs and emission reductions for the identified
control option, we are proposing to revise the MON for heat exchange
systems pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are proposing at 40 CFR
63.2490(d)(1) to specify quarterly monitoring for existing and new heat
exchange systems (after an initial 6 months of monthly monitoring)
using the Modified El Paso Method and a leak definition of 6.2 ppmv of
total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the
stripping gas. We are also proposing at 40 CFR 63.2490(d)(4) a delay of
repair action level of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as
methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv, that if exceeded during leak
monitoring, would require immediate repair (i.e., the leak found cannot
be put on delay of repair and would be required to be repaired within
30 days of the monitoring event). This would apply to both monitoring
heat exchange systems and individual heat exchangers by replacing the
use of any 40 CFR part 136 water sampling method with the Modified El
Paso Method and removing the option that allows for use of a surrogate
indicator of leaks. We are also proposing at 40 CFR 63.2490(d)(2) and
(3) re-monitoring at the monitoring location where a leak is identified
to ensure that any leaks found are fixed. Finally, we are proposing
that none of these proposed requirements would apply to heat exchange
systems that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per
minute or less. We solicit comment on the proposed requirements.
Table 10--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impact for Requiring the Modified El Paso Method for Heat Exchange Systems at MON Facilities \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
annualized VOC emission HAP emission HAP cost annualized HAP cost
Control option Total capital costs w/o reductions reductions effectiveness costs with effectiveness
investment ($) credits \2\ ($/ (tpy) (tpy) w/o credits credits \2\ ($/ with credits
yr) \2\ ($/ton) yr) \2\ ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1,483,000 261,000 306 31 8,530 (14,000) (470)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are calculated for the year 2016.
\2\ Recovery credits represent the cost savings of chemicals in process lines not leaking into heat exchange systems and, therefore, not being lost, due
to application of the El Paso Method.
3. Process Vents, Storage Tanks, Transfer Racks, Wastewater
We did not identify any cost-effective developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies for process vents, storage tanks,
transfer racks, and waste streams that achieve a greater HAP emission
reduction beyond the emission reduction already required by MON, with
the exception of developments presented in section IV.C of this
preamble to specifically control ethylene oxide emissions from process
vents and storage tanks. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to
the NESHAP for these emission process groups based on our technology
review. For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used
in these analyses, see the technical memoranda titled Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Process Vents, Wastewater,
Transfer Racks, and Storage Tanks Located in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
E. 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 revisions to require electronic reporting of
emissions test results and to clarify text or correct typographical
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. Our analyses
and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
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 CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.2450(a). 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 12 (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. In addition, we are proposing to make the portion of
the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) that specifically
addresses SSM periods no longer applicable beginning 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Finally, we are
proposing at 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(4), 40 CFR 63.2480(f), and 40 CFR
63.2485(p) and (q) to make references that are related to an SSM
exemption in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (for wastewater), 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS (for process vents, storage tanks, transfer racks), and
40 CFR part 63, subparts H and UU, and 40 CFR part 65, subpart F (for
equipment leaks), will no longer be applicable.
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.
[[Page 69225]]
We are proposing that emissions from startup and shutdown
activities be included when determining if all the standards are being
attained. As currently proposed in 40 CFR 63.2450(a)(2), compliance
with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this
subpart is required ``at all times.'' We solicit comment on whether
owners and operators in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing source category will be able to comply with the standards
during these times. Emission reductions for process vents and transfer
rack operations are typically achieved by routing vapors to an APCD
such as a flare, thermal oxidizer, or carbon adsorber. It is common
practice in this source category to start an APCD prior to startup of
the emissions source it is controlling, so the APCD would be operating
before emissions are routed to it. We expect APCDs would be operating
during startup and shutdown events in a manner consistent with normal
operating periods, and that these APCDs will be operated to maintain
and meet the monitoring parameter operating limits set during the
performance test.
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.
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 APCD 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 PRDs 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 in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category, 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.
In the 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.
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no'' in which
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) would no longer be applicable beginning 3 years
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. We are
proposing to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2450(u) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions ``at all times'' while
[[Page 69226]]
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
63.2450(u) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no'' in
which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) would no longer be applicable beginning 3
years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
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 63.2450(u).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 12)
entries for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i), (ii), (v) through (viii), and (ix) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no'' in which these provisions
would no longer be applicable beginning 3 years after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register. Generally, these paragraphs
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 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) would no longer be applicable
beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. 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
standards 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 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no'' in which 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1) would no longer be applicable beginning 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 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 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) would no longer be applicable
beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing
at 40 CFR 63.2450(g)(6). The performance testing we are proposing to
add differs from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The proposed 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 will exclude periods of startup
or shutdown as representative conditions for conducting performance
testing. 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 upon request such records
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance
test,'' 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 12)
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no'' in which these provisions would no longer be
applicable beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. 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 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) by adding separate rows for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)
through (3) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no'' in which
40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) would no longer be applicable beginning 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 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 40 CFR 63.2450(j)(6) text 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 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) by adding separate
rows for each provision and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii), (iv), and (v) would no longer
be applicable beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2525(h) and (l). The regulatory
text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is
replacing in that the
[[Page 69227]]
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 40 CFR 63.2525(l) a provision 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.
When applicable, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) 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 40 CFR
63.2525(l). Finally, when applicable, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) 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 12)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by adding a separate row for this
provision and changing column 3 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) would no longer be applicable to CEMS beginning 3 years
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. When
applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the
affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM 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.
2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
a. Monitoring for Adsorbers That Cannot Be Regenerated and Regenerative
Adsorbers That Are Regenerated Offsite
We are proposing to add monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
63.2450(e)(7) for adsorbers that cannot be regenerated and regenerative
adsorbers that are regenerated offsite because the MON does not
currently include specific monitoring requirements for this type of
APCD. We are proposing owners and operators of this type of APCD use
dual adsorbent beds in series and conduct daily monitoring. We have
prescribed a dual bed system because the use of a single bed does not
ensure continuous compliance unless the bed is replaced significantly
before breakthrough.\52\ A dual bed system will allow one bed to be
saturated before it is replaced and, therefore, makes efficient use of
the adsorber bed without exceeding the emission limits. Facilities
utilizing non-regenerative adsorbers must typically replace the
adsorber bed at the end of the absorbent life and already have a second
bed onsite. Therefore, we have determined that these proposed
requirements would not impose a cost increase; it would only require a
second adsorber bed to be purchased earlier than it would have under
previous rules. In addition, once the second adsorber was purchased,
the source would need to purchase and install canisters at the same
rate they would have under previous rules. In fact, the source could
likely reduce costs over time because the adsorber beds can be used to
a greater saturation level without risking non-compliance. Without the
proposed requirement to use dual adsorbent beds in series, sources
might replace the beds based on temperature readings, the vendor's bed
life expectancy estimates or past history, and may replace the bed
prematurely in order to avoid non-compliance. The burden of purchasing
the initial additional adsorber bed, when compared to the large
increase in compliance assurance, is small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ We are proposing to define the term ``breakthrough'' at 40
CFR 63.2550(i) to mean the time when the level of HAP or total
organic compound (TOC) detected is at the highest concentration
allowed to be discharged from an adsorber system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to regenerative adsorbers, in order to monitor performance
deterioration, we are proposing measurements of HAP or TOC using a
portable analyzer or chromatographic analysis for non-regenerative
absorbers. We are proposing that these measurements be taken daily on
the outlet of the first adsorber bed in series using a sample port.
Furthermore, in order to relieve some monitoring burden, we have
included the option to reduce the frequency of monitoring with the
portable analyzer from daily to weekly or monthly. If you choose this
option, you would first be required to establish an average adsorber
bed life. For periods when more than 2 months remain on the bed life,
monthly monitoring can be conducted, and when more than 2 weeks remain
on the bed life, weekly monitoring can be conducted.
b. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MON facilities
submit electronic copies of required flare management plans (at 40 CFR
63.2450(e)(5)(iv)), compliance reports (at 40 CFR 63.2520(e)),
performance test reports (at 40 CFR 63.2520(f)), and performance
evaluation reports (at 40 CFR 63.2520(g)) 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, which
is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 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 \53\ 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. Flare
[[Page 69228]]
management plans would be uploaded as a PDF file. For compliance
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.\54\ The EPA specifically requests
comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
\54\ See MON_Compliance_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 63.2520(h). 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 63.2520(i). 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 \55\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
agency-wide policy \56\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\57\ 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, which
is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\56\ 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.
\57\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other Corrections
There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, to clarify text or correct typographical
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed
editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 11 of
this preamble.
Table 11--Summary of Proposed Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Proposed revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2435(c)(3).......................................................... Remove the word ``future.''
40 CFR 63.2450(c)(2).......................................................... Correct cross-reference error by
changing ``Sec. 63.2525(f)''
to ``Sec. 63.2525(e)(3) and
(4).''
40 CFR 63.2450(j)(1)(i)....................................................... Correct typo by changing ``an
Fourier'' to ``a Fourier''; and
clarify performance
specification requirements.
40 CFR 63.2450(k)(4)(iv)...................................................... Correct cross-reference error by
changing ``(b)(2)(ii)'' to
``(c)(2)(ii).''
40 CFR 63.2450(l)............................................................. Correct typo by adding the
``Sec. '' symbol.
40 CFR 63.2460(b)(5).......................................................... Change ``under either'' to ``if
you comply with one.''
40 CFR 63.2470(e)(3).......................................................... Replace the phrase ``pounds per
square inch gage pressure
(psig)'' with ``psig'' because
the term is defined earlier in
the rule text.
40 CFR 63.2475(a)............................................................. Correct cross-reference error by
changing ``in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section'' to
``in paragraph (b) of this
section.''
40 CFR 63.2520(c)(2).......................................................... Correct cross-reference error by
changing ``Sec.
63.2460(c)(5)'' to ``Sec.
63.2450(k)(6).''
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(A).................................................. For clarification, change ``The
date and time'' to ``The start
date, start time, and duration
in hours.''
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(B).................................................. For clarification, change ``The
date, time, and duration that
each CEMS was out-of-control,
including the information in
63.8(c)(8).'' to ``The start
date, start time, and duration
in hours that each CEMS was out-
of-control and a description of
the corrective actions taken.''
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(D).................................................. For clarification, change ``A
summary of the total duration
of the deviation during the
reporting period'' to ``The
total duration in hours of all
deviations for each CMS during
the reporting period'' and add
``the total operating time in
hours of the affected source
during the reporting period.''
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(F).................................................. For clarification, change ``A
summary of the total duration
of CMS downtime'' to ``The
total duration in hours of CMS
downtime for each CMS.''
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(I).................................................. For clarification, change ``A
brief description of the CMS''
to ``The monitoring equipment
manufacturer(s) and model
number(s) and the pollutant or
parameter monitored.''
[[Page 69229]]
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(8).......................................................... For clarification, change
``Records of process units
added to a PUG as specified in
Sec. 63.2525(i)(4) and
records of primary product
redeterminations as specified
in Sec. 63.2525(i)(5)'' to
``For process units added to a
PUG, you must report the
description and rationale
specified in Sec.
63.2525(i)(4). You must report
your primary product
redeterminations specified in
Sec. 63.2525(i)(5).''
40 CFR 63.2525(f)............................................................. Correct cross-reference error by
changing ``Sec. 63.2450(s)''
to ``Sec. 63.2450(p).''
40 CFR 63.2550(i)............................................................. Add definition for ``bench-scale
process.''
40 CFR 63.2550(i)............................................................. Change ``it is up to and
including the extruder, die
plate'' to remove ``extruder,''
in the definition of
``miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing
process'' in bullet (6).
40 CFR 63.2550(i)............................................................. Define ``loading rack'' as a
single system used to fill tank
trucks and railcars at a single
geographic site. Loading
equipment and operations that
are physically separate (i.e.,
do not share common piping,
valves, and other equipment)
are considered to be separate
loading racks. The term
``loading rack'' is used in the
definition of ``transfer rack''
but ``loading rack'' is not
defined in the MON.
All Equations................................................................. For clarification, renumber
equations in numerical order.
Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart FFFF...................................... Add a row for ``Sec.
63.7(e)(4).''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
Amendments to the MON proposed in this rulemaking for adoption
under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(d)(6) are
subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section
112(i).
For all of the requirements we are proposing under CAA sections
112(d)(2), (3), and (d)(6), we are proposing all affected sources must
comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the compliance
date shall be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 3 years
after the effective date of the standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s three-
year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission
standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].'' Association of
Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In
determining what compliance period is as expeditious as practicable, we
consider the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and
change operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new
affected sources would be required to comply with these requirements by
the effective date of the final amendments to the MON standards or
startup, whichever is later.
We are proposing new operating and monitoring requirements for
flares under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). We anticipate that these
requirements would require the installation of new flare monitoring
equipment and we project most MCPUs would install new control systems
to monitor and adjust assist gas (air or steam) addition rates. Similar
to the addition of new control equipment, these new monitoring
requirements for flares would require engineering evaluations,
solicitation and review of vendor quotes, contracting and installation
of the equipment, and operator training. Installation of new monitoring
and control equipment on flares will require the flare to be taken out
of service. Depending on the configuration of the flares and flare
header system, taking the flare out of service may also require a
significant portion of the MCPU to be shutdown. Therefore, for all
existing affected sources, and all new affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after April 4, 2002, and on or before
December 17, 2019, we are proposing that it is necessary to provide 3
years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup,
whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply with the new
operating and monitoring requirements for flares. For all new affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after December
17, 2019, we are proposing owners or operators comply with the new
operating and monitoring requirements for flares by the effective date
of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later).
Under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), we are proposing new vent
control requirements for bypasses. These requirements would typically
require the addition of piping and potentially new control
requirements. As these vent controls would most likely be routed to the
flare, we are proposing, for all existing affected sources, and all new
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
April 4, 2002, and on or before December 17, 2019, to provide 3 years
after the effective date of the final rule for owners or operators to
allow coordination of these bypass modifications with the installation
of the new monitoring equipment for the flares. For all new affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after December
17, 2019, we are proposing owners or operators comply with the new vent
control requirements for bypasses by the effective date of the final
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later).
For atmospheric PRD in HAP service, we are establishing a work
practice standard that requires a process hazard analysis and
implementation of a minimum of three redundant measures to prevent
atmospheric releases. Alternately, owners or operators may elect to
install closed-vent systems to route these PRDs to a flare, drain (for
liquid thermal relief valves), or other control system. We anticipate
that sources will need to identify the most appropriate preventive
measures or control approach; design, install, and test the system;
install necessary process instrumentation and safety systems; and may
need to time installations with equipment shutdown or maintenance
outages. Therefore, for all existing affected sources, and all new
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
April 4, 2002, and on or before December 17, 2019, we are proposing a
compliance date of 3 years from the effective date of the final rule
(or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply
with the work practice standards for atmospheric PRD releases. For all
new affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction
after December 17, 2019, we are proposing owners or operators comply
with the work practice standards for atmospheric PRD releases
[[Page 69230]]
by the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is
later).
Under our technology review for equipment leaks under CAA section
112(d)(6), we are revising the leak definition for light liquid pumps
at batch processes from 10,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm. Affected sources are
currently monitoring light liquid pumps on a monthly basis, and the
change we are proposing to lower the leak definition would require no
additional equipment and would only result in identifying smaller leaks
that require repair. Therefore, we believe that this change could be
implemented quickly and are proposing a compliance date of 1 year after
the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is
later, for all existing affected sources, and all new affected sources
that commence construction or reconstruction after April 4, 2002, and
on or before December 17, 2019 to comply with the proposed leak
definition for light liquid pumps at batch processes. For all new
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
December 17, 2019, we are proposing owners or operators comply with the
proposed leak definition for light liquid pumps at batch processes by
the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is
later).
As a result of our technology review for heat exchange systems, we
are proposing to replace the existing leak definition and monitoring
method with a new leak definition and monitoring method. We project
some owners and operators would require engineering evaluations,
solicitation and review of vendor quotes, contracting and installation
of monitoring equipment, and operator training. In addition, facilities
will need time to read and understand the amended rule requirements and
update standard operating procedures. Therefore, we are proposing that
all existing affected sources, and all new affected sources that
commence construction or reconstruction after April 4, 2002, and on or
before December 17, 2019 must comply with the new monitoring
requirements for heat exchange systems no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
For all new affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after December 17, 2019, we are proposing owners or
operators comply with the new monitoring requirements for heat exchange
systems by the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup,
whichever is later).
Additionally, as previously mentioned in this preamble, we are
proposing under CAA section 112(f), new provisions for process vents
and storage tanks at MON facilities emitting ethylene oxide, as well as
proposing to implement one of two co-proposed control options for
equipment leaks. The proposed provisions may require additional time to
plan, purchase, and install equipment for ethylene oxide control. For
example, for process vents, if the affected source cannot demonstrate
99.9-percent control of ethylene oxide emissions, or reduce ethylene
oxide emissions to less than 1 ppmv (from each process vent) or 5
pounds per year (for all combined process vents), then a new control
system will need to be installed. Therefore, we are proposing a
compliance date of 2 years after the effective date of the final rule,
or upon startup, whichever is later for all existing affected sources,
and all new affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 4, 2002, and on or before December 17, 2019
to comply with the proposed ethylene oxide requirements. For all new
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
December 17, 2019, we are proposing owners or operators comply with the
ethylene oxide requirements by the effective date of the final rule (or
upon startup, whichever is later).
Finally, we are 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. We are also proposing electronic reporting
requirements. We are positing that facilities would need some time to
successfully accomplish these revisions, including time to read and
understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup
and shutdown, as defined in the rule, and make any necessary
adjustments, including making adjustments to standard operating
procedures, and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary
hardware and software. 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 proposed revisions to SSM requirements as well as the new
proposed electronic reporting requirements for flare management plans,
compliance reports, and performance evaluation reports, the EPA
considers a period of 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and,
thus, is proposing that all affected sources be in compliance with
these revised requirements upon initial startup or within 3 years of
the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. However, we
are proposing to provide 60 days after the effective date of the final
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators to
comply with the requirement to report performance test results and
reports electronically.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are 201 MON facilities currently operating. A complete list
of facilities that are currently subject to the MON is available in
Appendix 1 of the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, estimated ethylene oxide emissions
from the modeling file were approximately 9.5 tpy from the eight
facilities with emission process groups in ethylene oxide service. For
co-proposed Control Option 1, we estimated ethylene oxide emissions
reductions of 8.8 tpy for equipment leaks, storage tanks, and process
vents in ethylene oxide service. For co-proposed Control Option 2, we
estimated ethylene oxide emissions reductions of 9.0 tpy for equipment
leaks, storage tanks, and process vents in ethylene oxide service.
At the current level of control, we estimate HAP emissions for 194
MON facilities of approximately 2,558 tpy and VOC emissions of
approximately 19,719 tpy, based on the MON emissions inventory. We
estimate that HAP emissions reductions would range from 52 tpy (based
on model plant estimates) to 116 tpy (based on the MON emissions
inventory) and VOC emissions reductions range from 283 tpy (based on
the MON emissions inventory) to 385 tpy (based on model plant
estimates) as a result of the proposed amendments for MON equipment
leaks and heat exchange systems. Note, these emissions reductions do
not consider the potential excess emissions reductions from flares that
could result from the proposed requirements; we estimated flare excess
[[Page 69231]]
emissions reductions of 263 tpy HAP (based on model plant estimates)
and 1,254 tpy VOC (based on model plant estimates). If we considered
the flare excess emissions, the total emissions reductions as a result
of the proposed amendments were estimated between 315 and 379 tpy of
HAP and between 1,537 and 1,639 tpy of VOC. These emissions reductions
are documented in the following memoranda, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking: Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for Equipment Leaks Located in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems Located in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, Analysis
of Control Options for Storage Tanks and Process Vents Emitting
Ethylene Oxide Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category, Analysis of Control Options for
Equipment Leaks at Processes that use Ethylene Oxide Located in the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, Control
Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Source Category, and Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The nationwide costs of the proposed amendments are presented in
Table 12 of this preamble for (1) all MON sources, (2) only MON sources
not expected to be affected by the proposed ethylene oxide-specific
controls (i.e., equipment leaks, heat exchange systems, flares, PRDs,
maintenance vents, recordkeeping and reporting), and (3) only MON
sources expected to be affected by the proposed ethylene oxide controls
(i.e., storage tanks, process vents, equipment leaks). As described in
this preamble, for ethylene oxide sources, we are co-proposing two
options which differ only by the proposed equipment leak standards. The
first option (i.e., Control Option 1) proposes that the same equipment
leak standards (i.e., lower the leak definition for batch pumps to
1,000 ppm and require connector monitoring at a leak definition of 500
ppm) will apply to all facilities in ethylene oxide service. The second
option (i.e., Control Option 2) proposes that different equipment leak
standards will apply to facilities in ethylene oxide service, depending
on whether their cancer risk is lower than 100-in-1 million (i.e.,
lower the leak definition for batch pumps to 1,000 ppm and require
connector monitoring at a leak definition of 500 ppm) or greater than
100-in-1 million (i.e., require leakless pumps, leakless valves, and
connector monitoring at a leak definition of 100 ppm). These costs are
presented in different columns in Table 12 of this preamble, and are
referred to as ``Option 1'' and ``Option 2,'' respectively.
Table 12--Total Capital and Annualized Costs
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total Total
annualized annualized annualized annualized
Total capital costs w/o costs w/ Total capital costs w/o costs w/
costs recovery recovery costs recovery recovery
credits credits credits credits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MON Sources--Total.................................. 42,400,000 12,600,000 12,300,000 43,000,000 12,700,000 12,400,000
MON Sources w/o Ethylene Oxide Controls--Total.......... 39,700,000 10,900,000 10,500,000 39,700,000 10,900,000 10,500,000
Flares \1\.......................................... 17,200,000 4,090,000 4,090,000 17,200,000 4,090,000 4,090,000
Equipment Leaks \2\................................. 829,000 150,000 82,000 829,000 150,000 82,000
Pressure Relief Devices \3\......................... 18,700,000 4,770,000 4,770,000 18,700,000 4,770,000 4,770,000
Maintenance Vents \3\............................... .............. 2,340 2,340 .............. 2,340 2,340
Heat Exchange Systems \4\............................... 1,480,000 261,000 (14,300) 1,480,000 261,000 (14,300)
Recordkeeping and Reporting............................. 1,490,000 1,610,000 1,610,000 1,490,000 1,610,000 1,610,000
MON Sources w/Ethylene Oxide Controls--Total............ 2,720,000 1,760,000 1,750,000 3,320,000 1,860,000 1,850,000
Equipment Leaks \5\................................. 76,200 48,500 45,300 674,000 149,000 145,000
Process Vents \6\................................... 2,180,000 914,000 914,000 2,180,000 914,000 914,000
Storage Tanks \6\................................... 466,000 796,000 796,000 466,000 796,000 796,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The flare costs include purchasing analyzers, monitors, natural gas and steam, developing a flare management plan, and performing root cause
analysis and corrective action, and are discussed in the memorandum titled Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking.
\2\ Equipment leak costs include LDAR at a leak definition of 1,000 ppmv for light liquid pumps at batch processes, and are discussed in the memorandum
titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source
Category, in the docket for this rulemaking.
\3\ Pressure relief device costs were developed to comply with the proposed work practice standard and include implementation of three prevention
measures, performing root cause analysis and corrective action, and purchasing pressure relief device monitors. Maintenance costs were estimated to
document equipment opening procedures and circumstances under which the alternative maintenance vent limit is used. Costs are discussed in the
memorandum titled Review of Regulatory Alternatives for Certain Vent Streams in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, in
the docket for this rulemaking.
\4\ Heat exchange systems costs include the use of the Modified El Paso Method to monitor for leaks, and are discussed in the memorandum titled Clean
Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, in the
docket for this rulemaking.
[[Page 69232]]
\5\ Equipment leak costs for equipment in ethylene oxide service include two co-proposed options, Control Options 1 and 2. Control Option 1 includes
LDAR at a leak definition of 1,000 ppmv for light liquid pumps at batch processes with monthly monitoring and connector monitoring at a leak
definition of 500 ppmv with annual monitoring. Control Option 2 includes the same controls as Control Option 1 for streams in ethylene oxide service,
except that more stringent controls are applied to the two facilities with risks above 100-in-1 million. These more stringent controls include
requiring light liquid pumps in ethylene oxide service to be leakless with annual monitoring, gas/vapor and light liquid valves in ethylene oxide
service to either be leakless with annual monitoring or not be leakless and be monitored quarterly with equipment considered to be leaking if an
instrument reading above background is found, and connector monitoring for connectors in ethylene oxide service at a leak definition of 100 ppmv with
monthly monitoring. Costs are discussed in the memorandum titled Analysis of Control Options for Equipment Leaks at Processes that use Ethylene Oxide
Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking.
\6\ Costs for process vents and storage tanks in ethylene oxide service include the requirement to control all storage tanks in ethylene oxide service,
the installation of a control device that achieves 99.9-percent ethylene oxide emissions reductions, and initial and periodic performance testing of
the control device, and are discussed in the memorandum titled Analysis of Control Options for Storage Tanks and Process Vents Emitting Ethylene Oxide
Located in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, as
detailed in the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business
Screening Assessments for the Proposed Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this
action. For the proposed amendments, the EPA performed a screening
analysis for impacts on all affected facilities by comparing compliance
costs to revenues at the ultimate parent company level. This is known
as the cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales ratio, or the ``sales test.''
The ``sales test'' is an impact methodology the EPA employs in
analyzing entity impacts as opposed to a ``profits test,'' in which
annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits. The
use of a ``sales test'' for estimating small business impacts for a
rulemaking is consistent with guidance offered by the EPA on compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and is consistent with
guidance published by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office
of Advocacy that suggests that cost as a percentage of total revenues
is a metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation
to increases on large entities.
There are 201 facilities affected by the proposed amendments. Of
these, 17 facilities, or 8.5 percent, are small entities. We calculated
the cost-to-sales ratios for all the affected facilities to determine
(1) the magnitude of the costs of the proposed amendments and (2)
whether there would be a significant impact on small entities. To be
conservative, we used facility-specific costs without recovery credits.
For the two options for all firms the average cost-to-sales ratio is
approximately 0.02 percent; the median cost-to-sales ratio is less than
0.01 percent; and the maximum cost-to-sales ratio is approximately 0.89
percent. For large firms, the average cost-to-sales ratio is less than
0.01 percent; the median cost-to-sales ratio is less than 0.01 percent;
and the maximum cost-to-sales ratio is approximately 0.47 percent. For
small firms, the average cost-to-sales ratio is approximately 0.23
percent, the median cost-to-sales ratio is 0.10 percent, and the
maximum cost-to-sales ratio is 0.89 percent. The costs of the proposal
are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless
of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the
firms.
E. What are the benefits?
EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission
reductions of HAP associated with this proposed action. However, we
expect this proposed action would provide benefits associated with HAP
emission reductions and lower risk of adverse health effects in
communities near facilities subject to the MON.
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 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/miscellaneous-organic-chemical-manufacturing-national-emission. 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-2018-0746 (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/miscellaneous-organic-chemical-manufacturing-national-emission.
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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review because it raises novel legal or
[[Page 69233]]
policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have
been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential economic impacts associated with this action. This analysis,
Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.
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 1969.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rulemaking, and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing amendments that change the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for several emission sources at MON
facilities (e.g., flares, heat exchangers, PRDs, storage tanks, and
process vents). The proposed amendments also require electronic
reporting, remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions
that affect reporting and recordkeeping. This information would be
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of MON
facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF).
Estimated number of respondents: 201 facilities.
Frequency of response: Semiannual or annual. Responses include
notification of compliance status reports and semiannual compliance
reports.
Total estimated burden: 12,118 hours (per year) for the responding
facilities and 2,413 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $3,639,019 (per year), which includes
$2,412,332 annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs for
the responding facilities.
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 January 16, 2020. 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. This
action will impose requirements on the small entities in the NESHAP and
associated regulated industrial source category described in section
I.A of this preamble. This action is projected to affect 201
facilities, and 17 of these facilities are small entities. For the
small entities, the average cost-to-sales ratio is approximately 0.23
percent. Additional details of the associated analysis are presented in
the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this
action.
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.
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. None of the MON facilities that have been
identified as being affected by this action are owned or operated by
tribal governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
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.A and C and sections IV.B and C of this preamble and
further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The overall economic impact of this
proposed rule should be minimal for MON facilities and their parent
companies (which are engaged in the energy sector).
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN)
Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 15, 18, 21, 22,
25, 25A, 25D, 26, 26A, 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 301, 305, 316,
320 of 40 CFR part 63, 624, 625 of 40
[[Page 69234]]
CFR part 136, appendix A, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671 of CFR part 136,
appendix A, 5030B (SW-846), 5031, 8260, 8260B (SW-846), 8260D (SW-846),
8270, 8430 (SW-846) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods, EPA Publication SW-846 third edition. During the
EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar
to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a potential
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant
method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F,
2G, 21, 22, 25D, 305, 316, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 5030B, 8260,
8260B, 8260D, 8270C, and 8430 (SW-846). The following five VCS were
identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the
purpose of this rule.
The EPA proposes to use the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10
(2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' \58\ as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 3B for the manual procedures only and not the
instrumental procedures. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10 method
incorporates both manual and instrumental methodologies for the
determination of oxygen content. The manual method segment of the
oxygen determination is performed through the absorption of oxygen. The
EPA is not proposing to incorporate this VCS by reference. This method
is available both in the docket for this rulemaking and at the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor,
Washington, DC 20036 and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ We identified this same 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS VCS that
was also identified in the NTTAA review for the Ethylene Production
RTR and is already being proposed as an amendment in that action
(for further information, see EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0357
and 84 FR 54330).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6420-18,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds
by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part
60 with the following caveats. This ASTM procedure 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. We are proposing that ASTM D6420-18 should not be
used for methane and ethane because the atomic mass is less than 35;
and ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. The
ASTM D6420-18 test method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph-
mass spectrometer to measure 36 VOCs. The test method provides on-site
analysis of extracted, unconditioned, and unsaturated (at the
instrument) gas samples from stationary sources.
Also, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6784-02 (2008)
reapproved, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-
Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 101A of appendix B to 40 CFR part 61 and EPA Method 29 of
appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60 (portion for mercury only) as a method
for measuring mercury. Note that this applies to concentrations of
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter of air. This
method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from
effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory
analysis, and procedures for calculating results. This method is
applicable for sampling elemental, oxidized, and particle-bound mercury
in flue gases of coal-fired stationary sources
In addition, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' \58\ as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with
caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as
mandatory. The ASTM D6348-12e1 method is an extractive FTIR
Spectroscopy-based field test method and is used to quantify gas phase
concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission streams from
stationary sources. The EPA is not proposing to incorporate this VCS by
reference. We are proposing the test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections Al through A8
are mandatory; and in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking
Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target
analyte (Equation A5.5). We are proposing that in order for the test
data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If
the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the
test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). We are proposing that
the %R value for each compound be reported in the test report, and all
field measurements 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.
Furthermore, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D5790-95 (2012),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds
in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' as
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 624 (and for the analysis of
total organic HAP in wastewater samples). We are proposing that, for
wastewater analyses, this ASTM method should be used with the sampling
procedures of EPA Method 25D or an equivalent method 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 is also
validated for an additional 14 HAP not targeted by the EPA method. This
test method covers the identification and simultaneous measurement of
purgeable volatile organic compounds. This method is applicable to a
wide range of organic compounds that have sufficiently high volatility
and low water solubility to be efficiently removed from water samples
using purge and trap procedures. We note that because the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing proposed rule has already proposed to revise the
performance test requirements table (Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part
63) to add IBR for ASTM D5790-95 (2012) (see 84 FR 47375), the EPA is
not proposing to incorporate this specific aspect of this VCS by
reference.
The four ASTM methods (ASTM D6420-18, ASTM D6784-02 (2008)
reapproved, ASTM D6348-12e1, and ASTM D5790-95 (2012)) are available
both in the docket for this rulemaking and at ASTM International, 1850
M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/.
[[Page 69235]]
Finally, the search identified 23 other VCS that were potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After
reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 23 candidate
VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data,
and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional
information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR, which is available in the docket for this
action.
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 the EPA should use such standards 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 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Our
analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated risks
greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in risks
between demographic groups, including the African American, Hispanic or
Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below the Poverty
Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50 km of the
MON facilities has a higher percentage of minority, lower income, and
lower education people when compared to the nationwide percentages of
those groups. However, acknowledging these potential disparities, the
risks for the source category were determined to be acceptable after
implementation of the proposed controls, and emissions reductions from
the proposed revisions will benefit these groups the most.
The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.B
and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category
Operations, which is available in the docket for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 1, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency 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:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h)(72);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(92) through (111) as paragraphs
(h)(93) through (1112);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (h)(92); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(98).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(72) ASTM D5790-95 (2012), Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. 63.2485(h) and
Table 4 to subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
(92) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. 63.2450(j).
* * * * *
(98) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),
(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.2465(d),
63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to
subpart DDDDD, tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to
subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and
appendix A to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
Subpart FFFF--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.2435 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web
Coating), MMMM (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products), and SSSS (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of this
part 63. Affiliated operations include, but are not limited to, mixing
or dissolving of coating ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity
adjustment, color tint or additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning
of coating lines and coating line parts; handling and storage of
coatings and solvent; and conveyance and treatment of wastewater.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.2445 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs (g) through (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2445 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (g) through (i) of this
section, if you have a new affected source, you must comply with this
subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
* * * * *
(b) Except as specified in paragraphs (g) through (i) of this
section, if you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no
later than May 10, 2008.
* * * * *
(g) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before December 17, 2019, must be in compliance
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this
section upon initial startup or [date 3 years after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. All
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
[[Page 69236]]
December 17, 2019, must be in compliance with the requirements listed
in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section upon initial startup,
or [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
whichever is later.
(1) The general requirements specified in Sec. 63.2450(a)(2),
(e)(4) through (7), (g)(6) and (7), (i)(3), (j)(5)(ii) and (6),
(k)(1)(ii), (7), and (8), (t), and (u), Sec. 63.2520(d)(3), (e)(11)
through (13), Sec. 63.2525(m) and (n), and Sec. 63.2535(m).
(2) For process vents, the requirements specified in Sec.
63.2455(d), Sec. 63.2520(e)(14), and Sec. 63.2525(p).
(3) For equipment leaks and pressure relief devices, the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2480(e) and (f), Sec. 63.2520(d)(4)
and (e)(14), and Sec. 63.2525(q).
(4) For wastewater streams and liquid streams in open systems
within an MCPU, the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2485(i)(2)(iii),
(n)(2)(vii), and (p) and (q).
(5) For heat exchange systems, the requirements specified in Sec.
63.2490(d), Sec. 63.2520(e)(16), and Sec. 63.2525(r).
(6) The other notification, reports, and records requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2500(g), Sec. 63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(D), Sec.
63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(M) and (N), and Sec. 63.2525(l) and (u).
(h) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before December 17, 2019, must be in compliance
with the requirements for light liquid pumps in Sec. 63.2480(b)(6) and
(c)(10) upon initial startup or [date 1 year after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. All
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
December 17, 2019, must be in compliance with the requirements for
light liquid pumps in Sec. 63.2480(b)(6) and (c)(10), except for
equipment in ethylene oxide service, upon initial startup, or [date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later.
(i) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before December 17, 2019, must be in compliance
with the ethylene oxide requirements in Sec. 63.2470(b) and (c)(4),
Sec. 63.2492, Sec. 63.2493, Sec. 63.2520(d)(5) and (e)(17), Sec.
63.2525(s), Table 1 to this subpart, item 5, Table 2 to this subpart,
item 3, Table 4 to this subpart, item 3, and Table 6 to this subpart,
item 3 upon initial startup or [date 2 years after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. All
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
December 17, 2019, must be in compliance with the ethylene oxide
requirements listed in Sec. 63.2470(b) and (c)(4), Sec. 63.2492,
Sec. 63.2493, Sec. 63.2520(d)(5) and (e)(17), Sec. 63.2525(s), Table
1 to this subpart, item 5, Table 2 to this subpart, item 3, Table 4 to
this subpart, item 3, and Table 6 to this subpart, item 3 upon initial
startup, or [date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], whichever is later.
0
5. Section 63.2450 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a), paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, and
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) through (7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text, paragraph (g) introductory
text, paragraphs (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(5);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (g)(6) and (7);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (i) introductory text and (i)(2);
0
f. Adding paragraph (i)(3);
0
g. Revising paragraph (j) introductory text, paragraph (j)(1)
introductory text, paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(iii), and (j)(3)
through (j)(5);
0
h. Adding paragraph (j)(6);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (k) introductory text, (k)(1), and (k)(4)(iv);
0
j. Adding paragraphs (k)(7) and (k)(8);
0
k. Revising paragraphs (l), (o), and (p); and
0
l. Adding paragraphs (t) and (u).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2450 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you
must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice
standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), and you
must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2455 through
63.2490 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec. 63.2495, Sec.
63.2500, or Sec. 63.2505), except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (s) of this section. You must meet the notification, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2515,
63.2520, and 63.2525.
(2) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and work
practice standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart at all times,
and you must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2455
through 63.2490 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec.
63.2495, Sec. 63.2500, or Sec. 63.2505), except as specified in
paragraphs (b) through (u) of this section. You must meet the
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.2515, 63.2520, and 63.2525.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Determine the applicable requirements based on the hierarchy
presented in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section. For a
combined stream, the applicable requirements are specified in the
highest-listed paragraph in the hierarchy that applies to any of the
individual streams that make up the combined stream. For example, if a
combined stream consists of emissions from Group 1 batch process vents
and any other type of emission stream, then you must comply with the
requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for the combined
stream; compliance with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section constitutes compliance for the other emission streams in the
combined stream. Two exceptions are that you must comply with the
requirements in table 3 to this subpart and Sec. 63.2465 for all
process vents with hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions, and
recordkeeping requirements for Group 2 applicability or compliance are
still required (e.g., the requirement in Sec. 63.2525(e)(3) and (4) to
track the number of batches produced and calculate rolling annual
emissions for processes with Group 2 batch process vents).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Except when complying with Sec. 63.2485, if you reduce organic
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices (except a flare) or recovery devices,
you must meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and
the requirements of Sec. 63.982(c) and the requirements referenced
therein.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section or
except when complying with Sec. 63.2485, if you reduce organic HAP
emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare,
you must meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and
the requirements of Sec. 63.982(b) and the requirements referenced
therein.
(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section, if you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP emissions from halogenated vent streams, you
must meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) of this
[[Page 69237]]
section, and the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the requirements
referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a
combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate
prior to the combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.
63.115(d)(2)(v).
(i) Beginning on and after [date 60 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], performance test reports must
be submitted according to the procedures in Sec. 63.2520(f).
(ii) If you use a halogen reduction device other than a scrubber,
then you must submit procedures for establishing monitoring parameters
to the Administrator as part of your precompliance report as specified
in Sec. 63.2520(c)(8).
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i)
through (xvi) of this section do not apply when demonstrating
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
(i) The phrase ``Except for equipment needed for safety purposes
such as pressure relief devices, low leg drains, high point bleeds,
analyzer vents, and open-ended valves or lines'' in Sec. 63.983(a)(3)
of subpart SS.
(ii) Sec. 63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS.
(iii) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.984(a) of subpart SS.
(iv) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.985(a) of subpart SS.
(v) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions''
in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS.
(vi) Sec. 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS.
(vii) Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS.
(viii) The term ``breakdowns'' in Sec. Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(i) of
subpart SS.
(ix) Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS.
(x) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns or malfunctions''
in Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS.
(xi) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns or malfunctions''
in Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS.
(xii) The phrase ``except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section'' in Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS.
(xiii) The second sentence of Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS.
(xiv) Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS.
(xv) Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS.
(xvi) Sec. 63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS.
(5) For any flare that is used to reduce organic HAP emissions from
an MCPU, you may elect to comply with the requirements in this
paragraph in lieu of the requirements of Sec. 63.982(b) and the
requirements referenced therein. However, beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g), paragraphs (e)(2) and
(f) of this section no longer apply to flares that control ethylene
oxide emissions and flares used to control emissions from MCPUs that
produce olefins or polyolefins. Instead, if you reduce organic HAP
emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a steam-
assisted, air-assisted, non-assisted, or pressure-assisted multi-point
flare that controls ethylene oxide emissions or is used to control
emissions from an MCPU that produces olefins or polyolefins, then you
must meet the applicable requirements for flares as specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.670 and 63.671 of subpart CC, including the provisions in
Tables 12 and 13 to subpart CC of this part, except as specified in
paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (xi) of this section. This requirement
also applies to any flare using fuel gas from a fuel gas system, of
which 50 percent or more of the fuel gas is derived from an MCPU that
has processes and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service or that
produces olefins or polyolefins. For purposes of compliance with this
paragraph, the following terms are defined in Sec. 63.641 of subpart
CC: Assist air, assist steam, center steam, combustion zone, combustion
zone gas, flare, flare purge gas, flare supplemental gas, flare sweep
gas, flare vent gas, lower steam, net heating value, perimeter assist
air, pilot gas, premix assist air, total steam, and upper steam.
(i) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions
limitation requirements specified in paragraph (r) of Sec. 63.670 of
subpart CC in lieu of the requirements in paragraphs (d) through (f) of
Sec. 63.670 of subpart CC, as applicable. However, instead of
complying with paragraph (r)(3)(iii) of Sec. 63.670 of subpart CC, you
must also submit the alternative means of emissions limitation request
to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Sector Lead, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703.
(ii) When determining compliance with the flare tip velocity and
combustion zone operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) and (e),
the initial 15-minute block period starts with the 15-minute block that
includes a full 15 minutes of the flaring event.
(iii) Instead of complying with paragraph (o)(2)(i) of Sec. 63.670
of subpart CC, you must develop and implement the flare management plan
no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g).
(iv) Instead of complying with paragraph (o)(2)(iii) of Sec.
63.670 of subpart CC, if required to develop a flare management plan
and submit it to the Administrator, then you must also submit all
versions of the plan in portable document format (PDF) to the EPA 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/). If you claim some of the information in your flare
management plan is confidential business information (CBI), submit a
version with the CBI omitted via CEDRI. A complete plan, including
information claimed to be CBI and clearly marked as CBI, must be mailed
to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, CORE CBI Office, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Sector Lead, 4930 Old Page
Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
(v) Substitute ``MCPU'' for each occurrence of ``petroleum
refinery.''
(vi) Each occurrence of ``refinery'' does not apply.
(vii) If a pressure-assisted multi-point flare is used as a control
device, then you must meet the following conditions:
(A) You are not required to comply with the flare tip velocity
requirements in paragraph (d) and (k) of Sec. 63.670 of subpart CC;
(B) You must substitute ``800'' for each occurrence of ``270'' in
paragraph (e) of Sec. 63.670 of subpart CC;
(C) You must determine the 15-minute block average NHVvg using only
the direct calculation method specified in in paragraph (l)(5)(ii) of
Sec. 63.670 of subpart CC;
(D) Instead of complying with paragraph (b) and (g) of Sec. 63.670
of subpart CC, if a pressure-assisted multi-point flare uses cross-
lighting on a stage of burners rather than having an individual pilot
flame on each burner, then you must operate each stage of the pressure-
assisted multi-point flare with a flame present at all times when
regulated material is routed to that stage of burners. Each stage of
burners that cross-lights in the pressure-assisted multi-point flare
must have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame
capable of igniting all regulated material
[[Page 69238]]
that is routed to that stage of burners. Each 15-minute block during
which there is at least one minute where no pilot flame is present on a
stage of burners when regulated material is routed to the flare is a
deviation of the standard. Deviations in different 15-minute blocks
from the same event are considered separate deviations. The pilot
flame(s) on each stage of burners that use cross-lighting must be
continuously monitored by a thermocouple or any other equivalent device
used to detect the presence of a flame;
(E) You must ensure that if a stage of burners on the pressure-
assisted multi-point flare uses cross-lighting, that the distance
between any two burners in series on that stage is no more than 6 feet;
and
(F) You must install and operate pressure monitor(s) on the main
flare header, as well as a valve position indicator monitoring system
for each staging valve to ensure that the flare operates within the
proper range of conditions as specified by the manufacturer. The
pressure monitor must meet the requirements in Table 13 of subpart CC
of this part.
(viii) If you choose to determine compositional analysis for net
heating value with a continuous process mass spectrometer, then you
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(5)(viii)(A) through (G) of this section.
(A) You must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.671(e)(2). You may
augment the minimum list of calibration gas components found in Sec.
63.671(e)(2) with compounds found during a pre-survey or known to be in
the gas through process knowledge.
(B) Calibration gas cylinders must be certified to an accuracy of 2
percent and traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) standards.
(C) For unknown gas components that have similar analytical mass
fragments to calibration compounds, you may report the unknowns as an
increase in the overlapped calibration gas compound. For unknown
compounds that produce mass fragments that do not overlap calibration
compounds, you may use the response factor for the nearest molecular
weight hydrocarbon in the calibration mix to quantify the unknown
component's NHVvg.
(D) You may use the response factor for n-pentane to quantify any
unknown components detected with a higher molecular weight than n-
pentane.
(E) You must perform an initial calibration to identify mass
fragment overlap and response factors for the target compounds.
(F) You must meet applicable requirements in Performance
Specification 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for continuous
monitoring system acceptance including, but not limited to, performing
an initial multi-point calibration check at three concentrations
following the procedure in Section 10.1 and performing the periodic
calibration requirements listed for gas chromatographs in Table 13 of
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the process mass spectrometer. You may
use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net Heating
Value by Gas Chromatograph in Table 13 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
(G) The average instrument calibration error (CE) for each
calibration compound at any calibration concentration must not differ
by more than 10 percent from the certified cylinder gas value. The CE
for each component in the calibration blend must be calculated using
Equation 1 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17DE19.000
Where:
Cm = Average instrument response (ppm)
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm)
(ix) If you use a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for
compositional analysis for net heating value, then you may choose to
use the CE of NHVmeasured versus the cylinder tag value NHV as the
measure of agreement for daily calibration and quarterly audits in lieu
of determining the compound-specific CE. The CE for NHV at any
calibration level must not differ by more than 10 percent from the
certified cylinder gas value. The CE for must be calculated using
Equation 2 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17DE19.001
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)
(x) Instead of complying with paragraph (q) of Sec. 63.670 of
subpart CC, you must comply with the reporting requirements specified
in Sec. 63.2520(d)(3) and Sec. 63.2520(e)(11).
(xi) Instead of complying with paragraph (p) of Sec. 63.670 of
subpart CC, you must keep the flare monitoring records specified in
Sec. 63.2525(m).
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the use of a bypass line at any time on a closed vent
system to divert a vent stream to the atmosphere or to a control device
not meeting the requirements specified in Table 1 through Table 7 of
this subpart is an emissions standards deviation. Equipment such as low
leg drains and equipment subject to Sec. 63.2480 are not subject to
this paragraph (e)(6). Open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind
flange, plug, or second valve and follow the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) are also not subject to this
paragraph (e)(6). You must also comply with the requirements specified
in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable:
(i) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.148(f) of subpart G, then you must continue to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.148(f) of subpart G and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in Sec. 63.148(j)(2) and (3) of subpart G, and
Sec. 63.148(h)(3) of subpart G, in addition to the applicable
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2485(q) of this section, the
recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.2525(n), and the
reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.2520(e)(12).
(ii) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.172(j) of subpart H, then you must continue to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.172(j) of subpart H and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in Sec. 63.118(a)(3) and (4) of
[[Page 69239]]
subpart G, and Sec. 63.118(f)(3) and (4) of subpart G, in addition to
the applicable requirements specified in Sec. 63.2480(f) and Sec.
63.2485(q), the recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.
63.2525(n), and the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.2520(e)(12).
(iii) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.983(a)(3) of subpart SS, then you must continue to comply with
the requirements in Sec. 63.983(a)(3) of subpart SS and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) and
Sec. 63.999(c)(2) of subpart SS, in addition to the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4), the recordkeeping requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2525(n), and the reporting requirements specified
in Sec. 63.2520(e)(12).
(iv) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 65.143(a)(3) of subpart G, then you must continue to comply with
the requirements in Sec. 65.143(a)(3) of subpart G and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. 65.163(a)(1) of
subpart G and Sec. 65.166(b) of subpart G; in addition to the
applicable requirements specified in Sec. 63.2480(f), the
recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.2525(n), and the
reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.2520(e)(12).
(7) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), if you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to an adsorber(s) that cannot be
regenerated or a regenerative adsorber(s) that is regenerated offsite,
then you must comply with paragraphs (e)(4) and (6) and the
requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you must install a system of dual
adsorber units in series and comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (e)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Conduct an initial performance test or design evaluation of the
adsorber and establish the breakthrough limit.
(ii) Monitor the HAP or total organic compound (TOC) concentration
daily through a sample port at the outlet of the first adsorber bed in
series. You must measure the concentration of HAP or TOC using either a
portable analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7 or Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 using
propane as the calibration gas.
(iii) Comply with paragraph (e)(7)(iii)(A) of this section, and you
may reduce your monitoring frequency according to paragraph
(e)(7)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when
breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), is detected between the
first and second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh
canister) will become the new first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will
become the second adsorber. For purposes of this paragraph,
``immediately'' means within 8 hours of the detection of a breakthrough
for adsorbers of 55 gallons or less, and within 24 hours of the
detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers greater than 55 gallons.
(B) In lieu of the daily monitoring, you may reduce your monitoring
frequency by establishing the average adsorber bed life. To establish
the average adsorber bed life, you must conduct daily monitoring of the
HAP or TOC concentration of the first adsorber bed in series until
breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), occurs for the first
three adsorber bed change-outs. You must reestablish an average
adsorber bed life if you change the adsorbent brand or type, or if any
process changes are made that would lead to a lower bed lifetime. Once
the average life of the bed is determined, you may conduct ongoing
monitoring, as specified in paragraphs (e)(7)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) You may conduct monthly monitoring if the adsorbent has more
than 2 months of life remaining, based on the average adsorber bed
life, as established in paragraph (e)(7)(iii)(B) of this section, and
the date the adsorbent was last replaced.
(2) You may conduct weekly monitoring if the adsorbent has more
than 2 weeks of life remaining, based on the average adsorber bed life,
established in paragraph (e)(7)(iii)(B) of this section, and the date
the adsorbent was last replaced.
(f) Requirements for flare compliance assessments. Except as
specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, you must comply with
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
(g) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified
in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this section apply instead of or in
addition to the requirements specified in subpart SS of this part 63.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) If you elect to comply with the outlet TOC concentration
emission limits in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, and the
uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains greater
than 10 percent (volume concentration) carbon disulfide, you must use
Method 18 or Method 15 to separately determine the carbon disulfide
concentration. Calculate the total HAP or TOC emissions by totaling the
carbon disulfide emissions measured using Method 18 or 15 and the other
HAP emissions measured using Method 18 or 25A.
* * * * *
(5) Section 63.997(c)(1) does not apply. For the purposes of this
subpart, results of all initial compliance demonstrations must be
included in the notification of compliance status report, which is due
150 days after the compliance date, as specified in Sec.
63.2520(d)(1). If the initial compliance demonstration includes a
performance test and the results are submitted electronically via CEDRI
in accordance with Sec. 63.2520(f), the process unit(s) tested, the
pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was
conducted may be submitted in the notification of compliance status
report in lieu of the performance test results. The performance test
results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the notification of
compliance status report is submitted.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), in lieu of the requirements specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1)
you must conduct performance tests under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested. 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 must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
(7) Comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4), as
applicable.
* * * * *
(i) Outlet concentration correction for combustion devices. Except
as specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section, when Sec.
63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) requires you to correct the measured concentration
at the outlet of a combustion device to 3 percent oxygen if you add
supplemental combustion air, the requirements in either paragraph
(i)(1) or (2) of this section apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(2) You must correct the measured concentration for supplemental
gases
[[Page 69240]]
using Equation 3 in Sec. 63.2460; you may use process knowledge and
representative operating data to determine the fraction of the total
flow due to supplemental gas.
(3) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) no longer apply. Instead, when
Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) requires you to correct the measured
concentration at the outlet of a combustion device to 3 percent oxygen
if you add supplemental combustion air, you must follow the procedures
in Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) to perform the concentration correction,
except you may also use Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to
determine the oxygen concentration.
(j) Continuous emissions monitoring systems. Each continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be installed, operated, and
maintained according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and paragraphs
(j)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B, and the applicable Quality Assurance Procedures of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F, and according to paragraph (j)(2) of this section, except
as specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. For any CEMS
meeting Performance Specification 8, you must also comply with appendix
F, procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60. Locate the sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location such that you obtain representative
measurements of emissions from the regulated source. For CEMS installed
after [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS within 180 days of
installation of the monitoring system.
(i) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 to measure hydrogen halide, other than hydrogen
chloride, and halogen HAP or CEMS meeting the requirements of
Performance Specification 18 to measure hydrogen chloride before we
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.8.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as C1. Use
Method 18 of appendix A-6 of 40 CFR part 60, Method 320 of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 63, ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), or any approved alternative as the reference method for the
relative accuracy tests, and report the results as C1.
(3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements inSec. 63.8 and according to the
applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B,
except that the schedule in Sec. 63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and before
[date 60 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the results of the performance evaluation must be included
in the notification of compliance status report. Beginning on and after
[date 60 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the results of the performance evaluation must be submitted
in accordance with Sec. 63.2520(g).
(4) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating
block averages computed using valid data consistent with the data
availability requirements specified in Sec. 63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through
(D), except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid
hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the
15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance,
or maintenance activities are being performed. An operating block is a
period of time from the beginning to end of batch operations within a
process. Operating block averages may be used only for batch process
vent data. In computing operating day or operating block averages to
determine compliance with this subpart, you must exclude monitoring
data recorded during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs,
maintenance periods, calibration checks, or other quality assurance
activities. Out-of-control periods are as specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7).
(5) If you add supplemental gases, you must comply with paragraphs
(j)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section,
correct the measured concentrations in accordance with paragraph (i) of
this section and Sec. 63.2460(c)(6).
(ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), you must use Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B, to certify your oxygen CEMS, and you must comply
with procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. Use Method 3A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-2 as the reference method when conducting a
relative accuracy test audit.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), in lieu of the requirements specified in Sec. 63.8(d)(3)
you must keep the written procedures required by Sec. 63.8(d)(2) on
record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source
is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e.,
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2). In addition to the information required in Sec.
63.8(d)(2), your written procedures for CEMS must include the
information in paragraphs (j)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section:
(i) Description of CEMS installation location.
(ii) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the
manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment components
and the span of the analyzer.
(iii) Routine quality control and assurance procedures.
(iv) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS performance evaluation,
which must include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; a process
change that is expected to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the
Administrator's request for a performance evaluation under section 114
of the Clean Air Act.
(v) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and (e)(1).
(k) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (68) of this section apply in addition to the
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in
subpart SS of this part 63.
(1) You must comply with paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
[[Page 69241]]
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section,
record the results of each calibration check and all maintenance
performed on the CPMS as specified in Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(A).
(ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section no longer
applies. Instead, you must record the results of each calibration check
and all maintenance performed on the CPMS as specified in Sec.
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(A), except you must record all maintenance, not just
preventative maintenance.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) Recording the downstream temperature and temperature
difference across the catalyst bed as specified in Sec.
63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (c)(2)(ii) is not required.
* * * * *
(7) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the manufacturer's specifications or your written
procedures must include a schedule for calibrations, preventative
maintenance procedures, a schedule for preventative maintenance, and
corrective actions to be taken if a calibration fails. If a CPMS
calibration fails, the CPMS is considered to be inoperative until you
take corrective action and the system passes calibration. You must
record the nature and cause of instances when the CPMS is inoperative
and the corrective action taken.
(8) You must comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4),
as applicable.
* * * * *
(l) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Sections Sec.
63.152(f)(7)(ii) through (iv) and Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(iii) and
(b)(6)(i)(A), which apply to the exclusion of monitoring data collected
during periods of SSM from daily averages, do not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(o) You may not use a flare to control halogenated vent streams or
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions.
(p) Except as specified in paragraph (t) of this section, opening a
safety device, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, is allowed at any time
conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
* * * * *
(t) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraph (p) of this section no longer applies. Instead,
you must comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2480(e).
(u) General Duty. Beginning no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.2445(g), at all times, you must operate and
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. 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.
0
6. Section 63.2455 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2455 What requirements must I meet for continuous process
vents?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to your continuous process vents, and you must meet each
applicable requirement specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, Sec. 63.2492, and Sec. 63.2493(a) through (c).
* * * * *
(d) Maintenance vents. Beginning no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.2445(g), you may designate a process vent as a
maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result of startup,
shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of equipment where equipment is
emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service. You must
comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) of this section for each maintenance vent.
(1) Prior to venting to the atmosphere, remove process liquids from
the equipment as much as practical and depressurize the equipment to
either: A flare meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.2450(e)(2) or (5),
as applicable, or a non-flare control device meeting the requirements
in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and the requirements specified in Sec.
63.982(c)(2) of subpart SS until one of the following conditions, as
applicable, is met.
(i) The vapor in the equipment served by the maintenance vent has a
lower explosive limit (LEL) of less than 10 percent.
(ii) If there is no ability to measure the LEL of the vapor in the
equipment based on the design of the equipment, the pressure in the
equipment served by the maintenance vent is reduced to 5 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) or less. Upon opening the maintenance vent,
active purging of the equipment cannot be used until the LEL of the
vapors in the maintenance vent (or inside the equipment if the
maintenance is a hatch or similar type of opening) is less than 10
percent.
(iii) The equipment served by the maintenance vent contains less
than 50 pounds of total volatile organic compounds (VOC).
(iv) If, after applying best practices to isolate and purge
equipment served by a maintenance vent, none of the applicable
criterion in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section can be
met prior to installing or removing a blind flange or similar equipment
blind, then the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance
vent must be reduced to 2 psig or less before installing or removing
the equipment blind. During installation or removal of the equipment
blind, active purging of the equipment may be used provided the
equipment pressure at the location where purge gas is introduced
remains at 2 psig or less.
(2) Except for maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, you must determine the LEL or,
if applicable, equipment pressure using process instrumentation or
portable measurement devices and follow procedures for calibration and
maintenance according to manufacturer's specifications.
(3) For maintenance vents complying with the alternative in
paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, you must determine mass of VOC
in the equipment served by the maintenance vent based on the equipment
size and contents after considering any contents drained or purged from
the equipment. Equipment size may be determined from equipment design
specifications. Equipment contents may be determined using process
knowledge.
0
7. Section 63.2460 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b)(5) introductory text,
paragraph (b)(5)(iii), paragraph (b)(6) introductory text, paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) and (ii), (c)(2)(v), and paragraph (c)(6) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating Equation 1 to paragraph (c)(6) as Equation 3;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(9) introductory text, (c)(9)(ii)
introductory text, paragraphs (c)(9)(ii)(D), and (c)(9)(iii) and (iv).
The revisions read as follows:
[[Page 69242]]
Sec. 63.2460 What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you, and you must meet each applicable requirement
specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, Sec. 63.2492, and
Sec. 63.2493(a) through (c).
(b) * * *
(5) You may elect to designate the batch process vents within a
process as Group 1 and not calculate uncontrolled emissions if you
comply with one of the situations in paragraph (b)(5)(i), (ii), or
(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) If you comply with an emission limit using a flare that meets
the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.987 or 63.2450(e)(5), as
applicable.
(6) You may change from Group 2 to Group 1 in accordance with
either paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section. Before [date 60
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
you must comply with the requirements of this section and submit the
test report. Beginning on and after [date 60 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply
with the requirements of this section and submit the performance test
report for the demonstration required in Sec. 63.1257(b)(8) in
accordance with Sec. 63.2520(f).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction
emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart FFFF, you must compare the
sums of the controlled and uncontrolled emissions for the applicable
Group 1 batch process vents within the process, and show that the
specified reduction is met. This requirement does not apply if you
comply with the emission limits of Table 2 to this subpart FFFF by
using a flare that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.987 or
63.2450(e)(5), as applicable.
(ii) When you conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a
non-flare control device used to control emissions from batch process
vents, you must establish emission profiles and conduct the test under
worst-case conditions according to Sec. [thinsp]63.1257(b)(8) instead
of under normal operating conditions as specified in Sec.
[thinsp]63.7(e)(1) or the conditions as specified in Sec.
[thinsp]63.2450(g)(6). The requirements in Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) and
(iii) also do not apply for performance tests conducted to determine
compliance with the emission limits for batch process vents. For
purposes of this subpart FFFF, references in Sec. 63.997(b)(1) to
``methods specified in Sec. 63.997(e)'' include the methods specified
in Sec. 63.1257(b)(8).
* * * * *
(v) If a process condenser is used for boiling operations in which
HAP (not as an impurity) is heated to the boiling point, you must
demonstrate that it is properly operated according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)(B), and
the demonstration must occur only during the boiling operation. The
reference in Sec. 63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) to the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.1254(c) means Sec. 63.2505 for the purposes of this subpart.
As an alternative to measuring the exhaust gas temperature, as required
by Sec. 63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B), you may elect to measure the liquid
temperature in the receiver.
* * * * *
(6) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. If you
use a control device other than a combustion device to comply with a
TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP outlet
concentration emission limit for batch process vents, you must correct
the actual concentration for supplemental gases using Equation 3 of
this subpart; you may use process knowledge and representative
operating data to determine the fraction of the total flow due to
supplemental gas.
* * * * *
(9) Requirements for a biofilter. If you use a biofilter to meet
either the 95 percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration
requirement specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
* * * * *
(ii) Performance tests. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must
conduct a performance test according to the procedures in Sec.
63.2450(g), Sec. 63.997, and paragraphs (c)(9)(ii)(A) through (D) of
this section. The design evaluation option for small control devices is
not applicable if you use a biofilter.
* * * * *
(D) Before [date 60 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], submit a performance test report as specified in
Sec. 63.999(a)(2)(i) and (ii) and include the records from paragraph
(c)(9)(ii)(B) of this section. Beginning on and after [date 60 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you
must submit a performance test report as specified in Sec. 63.2520(f).
(iii) Monitoring requirements. Use either a biofilter bed
temperature monitoring device (or multiple devices) capable of
providing a continuous record or an organic monitoring device capable
of providing a continuous record. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(4), the general requirements for monitoring in Sec. 63.996,
and keep records of temperature or other parameter monitoring results
as specified in Sec. 63.998(b) and (c), as applicable. If you monitor
temperature, the operating temperature range must be based on only the
temperatures measured during the performance test; these data may not
be supplemented by engineering assessments or manufacturer's
recommendations as otherwise allowed in Sec. 63.999(b)(3)(ii)(A). If
you establish the operating range (minimum and maximum temperatures)
using data from previous performance tests in accordance with Sec.
63.996(c)(6), replacement of the biofilter media with the same type of
media is not considered a process change under Sec. 63.997(b)(1). You
may expand your biofilter bed temperature operating range by conducting
a repeat performance test that demonstrates compliance with the 95
percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration limit, as
applicable.
(iv) Repeat performance tests. You must conduct a repeat
performance test using the applicable methods specified in Sec.
63.2450(g) and Sec. 63.997 within 2 years following the previous
performance test and within 150 days after each replacement of any
portion of the biofilter bed media with a different type of media or
each replacement of more than 50 percent (by volume) of the biofilter
bed media with the same type of media.
0
8. Section 63.2465 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2465 What requirements must I meet for process vents that
emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or HAP metals?
* * * * *
(c) If collective uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions from the process vents within a process are greater than or
equal to 1,000 pounds per year (lb/yr), you must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and the requirements of Sec.
63.994 and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Conduct an initial performance test of each control device that
is used to comply with the emission limit for HAP metals specified in
Table 3 to this subpart. Conduct the performance test
[[Page 69243]]
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.2450(g) and Sec. 63.997. Use
Method 29 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the HAP metals
at the inlet and outlet of each control device, or use Method 5 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the total particulate matter
(PM) at the inlet and outlet of each control device. You may use ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14)
as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for mercury only) as a method
for measuring mercury concentrations of 0.5 to 100 micrograms per
standard cubic meter. You have demonstrated initial compliance if the
overall reduction of either HAP metals or total PM from the process is
greater than or equal to 97 percent by weight.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2470 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(e)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2470 What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 4 to this subpart
that applies to your storage tanks, and except as specified in
paragraph (b), you must also meet each applicable requirement specified
in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, Sec. 63.2492, and Sec.
63.2493(a) through (c).
(b) On and after the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(i), paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section do not apply to
storage tanks in ethylene oxide service as defined in Sec. 63.2550.
(c) Exceptions to subparts SS and WW of this part 63. (1) If you
conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a control device
used to control emissions only from storage tanks, you must establish
operating limits, conduct monitoring, and keep records using the same
procedures as required in subpart SS of this part 63 for control
devices used to reduce emissions from process vents instead of the
procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 63.985(c), 63.998(d)(2)(i), and
63.999(b)(2). You must also comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(4), as applicable.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, when
the term ``storage vessel'' is used in subparts SS and WW of this part
63, the term ``storage tank,'' as defined in Sec. 63.2550 applies for
the purposes of this subpart.
(3) For adsorbers that cannot be regenerated or regenerative
adsorbers that are regenerated offsite, you must comply with the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(7) in lieu of Sec.
63.995(c).
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(i), the exemptions for ``vessels storing organic liquids that
contain HAP only as impurities'' and ``pressure vessels designed to
operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the
atmosphere'' listed in the definition of ``storage tank'' in Sec.
63.2550 do not apply for storage tanks in ethylene oxide service.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) You may elect to set a pressure relief device to a value less
than the 2.5 psig required in Sec. 63.1253(f)(5) if you provide
rationale in your notification of compliance status report explaining
why the alternative value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses at
all times.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.2475 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2475 What requirements must I meet for transfer racks?
(a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice
standard in table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer
racks, and you must meet each applicable requirement in paragraph (b)
of this section.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.2480 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2), and (b)(5);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraph (c)(5);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(10) and (11), (e), and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2480 What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?
(a) You must meet each requirement in table 6 to this subpart that
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section. For each light liquid pump, valve, and
connector in ethylene oxide service as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), you
must also meet the applicable requirements specified in Sec. 63.2492
and Sec. 63.2493(d) and (e).
(b) Except as specified in paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) of this
section, if you comply with either subpart H or subpart UU of this part
63, you may elect to comply with the provisions in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section as an alternative to the referenced
provisions in subpart H or subpart UU of this part.
(1) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec. 63.178(b) or
Sec. 63.1036(b) may be applied to all processes, not just batch
processes.
(2) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in
accordance with Sec. 63.178(b) or Sec. 63.1036(b) is not required
after reconfiguration of an equipment train if flexible hose
connections are the only disturbed equipment.
* * * * *
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, for
pumps in light liquid service in an MCPU that has no continuous process
vents and is part of an existing source, you may elect to consider the
leak definition that defines a leak to be 10,000 parts per million
(ppm) or greater as an alternative to the values specified in Sec.
63.1026(b)(2)(i) through (iii) or Sec. 63.163(b)(2).
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(h), paragraph (b)(5) of this section no longer applies to pumps
in light liquid service. Instead, for all pumps in light liquid service
in an MCPU, the instrument reading that defines a leak and requires
repair is 1,000 ppmv or greater.
(7) For each piece of equipment that is added to an affected source
after December 17, 2019, and for each piece of equipment that replaces
equipment at an affected source after December 17, 2019, you must
initially monitor for leaks within 30 days after initial startup of the
equipment.
(c) Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(10) and (11) of this
section, if you comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, you may elect to
comply with the provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this
section as an alternative to the referenced provisions in 40 CFR part
65, subpart F.
* * * * *
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this section, for
pumps in light liquid service in an MCPU that has no continuous process
vents and is part of an existing source, you may elect to consider the
leak definition that defines a leak to be 10,000 ppm or greater as an
alternative to the values specified in Sec. 65.107(b)(2)(i) through
(iii).
* * * * *
(10) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(h), paragraph (c)(5) of this section no longer applies to
pumps in light liquid service. Instead, for all pumps in light liquid
service in an MCPU, the instrument reading that defines a leak and
requires repair is 1,000 ppmv or greater.
(11) For each piece of equipment that is added to an affected
source after December 17, 2019, and for each piece of equipment that
replaces equipment at an affected source after December 17,
[[Page 69244]]
2019, you must initially monitor for leaks within 30 days after initial
startup of the equipment.
* * * * *
(e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), except as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section,
you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section for pressure relief devices, such as relief
valves or rupture disks, in organic HAP gas or vapor service instead of
the pressure relief device requirements of Sec. 63.1030 of subpart UU,
Sec. 63.165 of subpart H, or Sec. 65.111 of subpart F. Except as
specified in paragraphs (e)(4) and (5) of this section, you must also
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(3), (6), (7),
and (8) of this section for all pressure relief devices.
(1) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release,
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as
measured by the method in Sec. 63.1023(b) of subpart UU, Sec.
63.180(c) of subpart H, or Sec. 65.104(b) of subpart F.
(2) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
organic HAP gas or vapor service, you must comply with the applicable
requirements paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section
following a pressure release.
(i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.
63.1023(b) of subpart UU, Sec. 63.180(c) of subpart H, or Sec.
65.104(b) of subpart F, no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure relief device returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service
following a pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device
is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
(ii) If the pressure relief device includes a rupture disk, either
comply with the requirements in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section
(and do not replace the rupture disk) or install a replacement disk as
soon as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than 5
calendar days after the pressure release. You must conduct instrument
monitoring, as specified in Sec. 63.1023(b) of subpart UU, Sec.
63.180(c) of subpart H, or Sec. 65.104(b) of subpart F, no later than
5 calendar days after the pressure relief device returns to organic HAP
gas or vapor service following a pressure release to verify that the
pressure relief device is operating with an instrument reading of less
than 500 ppm.
(iii) If the pressure relief device consists only of a rupture
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure
release. You must not initiate startup of the equipment served by the
rupture disk until the rupture disc is replaced. You must conduct
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 63.1023(b) of subpart UU,
Sec. 63.180(c) of subpart H, or Sec. 65.104(b) of subpart F, no later
than 5 calendar days after the pressure relief device returns to
organic HAP gas or vapor service following a pressure release to verify
that the pressure relief device is operating with an instrument reading
of less than 500 ppm.
(3) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraphs
(e)(4) and (5) of this section, you must comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for all
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service.
(i) You must equip each affected pressure relief device with a
device(s) or use a monitoring system that is capable of:
(A) Identifying the pressure release;
(B) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
(C) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is
occurring. The device or monitoring system must be either specific to
the pressure relief device itself or must be associated with the
process system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to
the atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include,
but are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor,
motion detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or
pressure monitor.
(ii) You must apply at least three redundant prevention measures to
each affected pressure relief device and document these measures.
Examples of prevention measures include:
(A) Flow, temperature, liquid level and pressure indicators with
deadman switches, monitors, or automatic actuators. Independent, non-
duplicative systems within this category count as separate redundant
prevention measures.
(B) Documented routine inspection and maintenance programs and/or
operator training (maintenance programs and operator training may count
as only one redundant prevention measure).
(C) Inherently safer designs or safety instrumentation systems.
(D) Deluge systems.
(E) Staged relief system where the initial pressure relief device
(with lower set release pressure) discharges to a flare or other closed
vent system and control device.
(iii) If any affected pressure relief device releases to atmosphere
as a result of a pressure release event, you must perform root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis according to the requirement in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section and implement corrective actions
according to the requirements in paragraph (e)(7) of this section. You
must also calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during each
pressure release event and report this quantity as required in Sec.
63.2520(e)(15). Calculations may be based on data from the pressure
relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process parameter
monitoring data and process knowledge.
(iv) You must determine the total number of release events that
occurred during the calendar year for each affected pressure relief
device separately. You must also determine the total number of release
events for each pressure relief device for which the root cause
analysis concluded that the root cause was a force majeure event, as
defined in Sec. 63.2550.
(v) Except for pressure relief devices described in paragraphs
(e)(4) and (5) of this section, the following release events from an
affected pressure relief device are a deviation of the pressure release
management work practice standards.
(A) Any release event for which the root cause of the event was
determined to be operator error or poor maintenance.
(B) A second release event not including force majeure events from
a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar year period for the
same root cause for the same equipment.
(C) A third release event not including force majeure events from a
single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar year period for any
reason.
(4) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process,
fuel gas system, or drain system. (i) If all releases and potential
leaks from a pressure relief device are routed through a closed vent
system to a control device, back into the process, to the fuel gas
system, or to a drain system, then you are not required to comply with
paragraph (e)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(ii) Before the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g),
both the closed vent system and control device (if applicable)
referenced in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must meet the
applicable requirements specified in Sec. 63.982(b) and (c)(2) of
subpart SS. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), both the closed vent system and control device (if
applicable) referenced in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must meet
the
[[Page 69245]]
applicable requirements specified in Sec. 63.982(c)(2), Sec. 63.983,
and Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) through (6).
(iii) The drain system (if applicable) referenced in paragraph
(e)(4)(i) must meet the applicable requirements specified in Sec.
63.2485(e).
(5) Pressure relief devices exempted from pressure release
management requirements. The following types of pressure relief devices
are not subject to the pressure release management requirements in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(i) Pressure relief devices in heavy liquid service, as defined in
Sec. 63.1020 of subpart UU or Sec. 65.103(f) of subpart F.
(ii) Thermal expansion relief valves.
(iii) Pressure relief devices designed with a set relief pressure
of less than 2.5 psig.
(iv) Pilot-operated pressure relief devices where the primary
release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control
device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain
system.
(v) Balanced bellows pressure relief devices where the primary
release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control
device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain
system.
(6) Root cause analysis and corrective action analysis. A root
cause analysis and corrective action analysis must be completed as soon
as possible, but no later than 45 days after a release event. Special
circumstances affecting the number of root cause analyses and/or
corrective action analyses are provided in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) You may conduct a single root cause analysis and corrective
action analysis for a single emergency event that causes two or more
pressure relief devices installed on the same equipment to release.
(ii) You may conduct a single root cause analysis and corrective
action analysis for a single emergency event that causes two or more
pressure relief devices to release, regardless of the equipment served,
if the root cause is reasonably expected to be a force majeure event,
as defined in Sec. 63.2550.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (ii) of this
section, if more than one pressure relief device has a release during
the same time period, an initial root cause analysis must be conducted
separately for each pressure relief device that had a release. If the
initial root cause analysis indicates that the release events have the
same root cause(s), the initially separate root cause analyses may be
recorded as a single root cause analysis and a single corrective action
analysis may be conducted.
(7) Corrective action implementation. You must conduct a root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis as specified in paragraphs
(e)(3)(iii) and (e)(6) of this section, and you must implement the
corrective action(s) identified in the corrective action analysis in
accordance with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (e)(7)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) All corrective action(s) must be implemented within 45 days of
the event for which the root cause and corrective action analyses were
required or as soon thereafter as practicable. If you conclude that no
corrective action should be implemented, you must record and explain
the basis for that conclusion no later than 45 days following the
event.
(ii) For corrective actions that cannot be fully implemented within
45 days following the event for which the root cause and corrective
action analyses were required, you must develop an implementation
schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable.
(iii) No later than 45 days following the event for which a root
cause and corrective action analyses were required, you must record the
corrective action(s) completed to date, and, for action(s) not already
completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
(8) Flowing pilot-operated pressure relief devices. For affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
December 17, 2019, you are prohibited from installing a flowing pilot-
operated pressure relief device or replacing any pressure relief device
with a flowing pilot-operated pressure relief device after [date 3
years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register].
For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction
after December 17, 2019, you are prohibited from installing and
operating flowing pilot-operated pressure relief devices. For purpose
of compliance with this paragraph, a flowing pilot-operated pressure
relief device means the type of pilot-operated pressure relief device
where the pilot discharge vent continuously releases emissions to the
atmosphere when the pressure relief device is actuated.
(f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (15) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this section.
(1) Sec. 63.163(c)(3) of subpart H.
(2) The second sentence of Sec. 63.181(d)(5)(i) of subpart H.
(3) Sec. 63.1026(b)(3) of subpart UU.
(4) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU.
(5) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
(6) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
(7) The second sentence of Sec. 65.105(f)(4)(i) of subpart F.
(8) Sec. 65.107(b)(3) of subpart F.
(9) The phrase ``(except periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 65.107(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart F.
(10) The phrase ``(except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 65.109(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart F.
(11) The phrase ``(except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 65.112(b)(1) of subpart F.
(12) The last sentence of Sec. 65.115(b)(1) of subpart F.
(13) The last sentence of Sec. 65.115(b)(2) of subpart F.
(14) The phrase ``Except for pressure relief devices needed for
safety purposes, low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, and
open-ended valves or lines'' in Sec. 65.143(a)(3) of subpart G.
(15) For flares complying with Sec. 63.2450(e)(5), the following
provisions do not apply:
(i) Sec. 63.172(d) of subpart H;
(ii) Sec. 63.180(e) of subpart H;
(iii) Sec. 63.181(g)(1)(iii) of subpart H;
(iv) The phrase ``including periods when a flare pilot light system
does not have a flame'' from Sec. 63.181(g)(2)(i) of subpart H;
(v) Sec. 63.1034(b)(2)(iii) of subpart UU; and
(vi) Sec. 65.115(b)(2) of subpart F.
0
12. Section 63.2485 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (f);
0
b. Adding paragraph (h)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (i)(2)(ii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (i)(2)(iii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (k) introductory text, (n)(2) introductory text,
(n)(2)(ii) and (n)(2)(iv)(A);
0
f. Redesignating Equation 1 to paragraph (n)(2) as Equation 4;
0
g. Adding paragraph (n)(2)(vii);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (n)(4) and (o);
0
i. Adding paragraphs (p) and (q).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 69246]]
Sec. 63.2485 What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams and
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?
(a) You must meet each requirement in table 7 to this subpart that
applies to your wastewater streams and liquid streams in open systems
within an MCPU, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (q) of
this section.
* * * * *
(f) Closed-vent system requirements. Except as specified in Sec.
63.2450(e)(6), when Sec. 63.148(k) refers to closed vent systems that
are subject to the requirements of Sec. [thinsp]63.172, the
requirements of either Sec. [thinsp]63.172 or Sec. 63.1034 apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) As an alternative to using EPA Method 624 as specified in Sec.
63.144(b)(5)(i)(C), you may use ASTM D5790-95 (2012) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14) for the analysis of total organic HAP in
wastewater samples. If you choose to use ASTM D5790-95 (2012), then you
must also use the sampling procedures of EPA Method 25D or an
equivalent method.
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The transferee must treat the wastewater stream or residual in
a biological treatment unit in accordance with the requirement in
paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section and the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 63.138 and 63.145 and the requirements referenced therein.
(iii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), the requirement of Sec. 63.145(a)(3) no longer
applies. Instead, the transferee must comply with the conditions
specified in 63.2450(g)(6).
* * * * *
(k) The requirement to correct outlet concentrations from
combustion devices to 3 percent oxygen in Sec. Sec. 63.139(c)(1)(ii)
and 63.145(i)(6) applies only if supplemental gases are combined with a
vent stream from a Group 1 wastewater stream. If emissions are
controlled with a vapor recovery system as specified in Sec.
63.139(c)(2), you must correct for supplemental gases as specified in
Sec. 63.2460(c)(6).
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) Calculate the destruction efficiency of the biological
treatment unit using Equation 4 of this subpart in accordance with the
procedures described in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (viii) of this
section. You have demonstrated initial compliance if E is greater than
or equal to 90 percent.
* * * * *
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (n)(2)(vii) of this section,
conduct the demonstration under representative process unit and
treatment unit operating conditions in accordance with Sec.
[thinsp]63.145(a)(3) and (4).
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) If the biological treatment process meets both of the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.145(h)(1)(i) and (ii), you may elect
to replace the Fbio term in Equation 4 of this subpart with
the numeral ``1.''
* * * * *
(vii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), the requirement of Sec. 63.145(a)(3) no longer
applies. Instead, you must comply with the conditions specified in
63.2450(g)(6).
* * * * *
(4) For any wastewater streams that are Group 1 for both PSHAP and
SHAP, you may elect to meet the requirements specified in table 7 to
this subpart for the PSHAP and then comply with paragraphs (n)(1)
through (3) of this section for the SHAP in the wastewater system. You
may determine the SHAP mass removal rate, in kg/hr, in treatment units
that are used to meet the requirements for PSHAP and add this amount to
both the numerator and denominator in Equation 4 of this subpart.
(o) Compliance records. Except as specified in paragraph (p) of
this section, for each CPMS used to monitor a nonflare control device
for wastewater emissions, you must keep records as specified in Sec.
63.998(c)(1) in addition to the records required in Sec. 63.147(d).
(p) Compliance records after date of compliance. Beginning no later
than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(g), paragraph (o)
of this section no longer applies. Instead, for each CPMS used to
monitor a nonflare control device for wastewater emissions, you must
keep records as specified in Sec. 63.998(c)(1) in addition to the
records required in Sec. 63.147(d), except that the provisions of
Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) do not apply.
(q) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction referenced provisions.
Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (q)(1)
through (5) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this section.
(1) Sec. 63.105(d) and (e).
(2) Sec. 63.132(b)(3)(i)(B).
(3) Sec. 63.132(f)(2).
(4) Sec. 63.148(f)(3).
(5) For flares complying with Sec. 63.2450(e)(5), the following
provisions do not apply:
(i) Sec. 63.139(c)(3);
(ii) Sec. 63.139(d)(2)(vii)(3);
(iii) Sec. 63.145(j);
(iv) Sec. 63.146(b)(7)(i);
(v) Sec. 63.147(d)(1); and
(vi) Sec. 63.1034(b)(2)(iii).
0
13. Revise Sec. 63.2490 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2490 What requirements must I meet for heat exchange systems?
(a) You must comply with each requirement in Table 10 to this
subpart that applies to your heat exchange systems, except as specified
in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, if you
comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.104 as specified in Table 10
to this subpart, then the phrase ``a chemical manufacturing process
unit meeting the conditions of Sec. 63.100 (b)(1) through (b)(3) of
this section'' in Sec. 63.104(a) means ``an MCPU meeting the
conditions of Sec. 63.2435'' for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, if you
comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.104 as specified in Table 10
to this subpart, then the reference to Sec. 63.100(c) in Sec.
63.104(a) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(d) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the requirements of Sec. 63.104 as specified in Table 10
to this subpart and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section no longer
apply. Instead, you must monitor the cooling water for the presence of
total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) that indicate a
leak according to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and if you detect a
leak, then you must repair it according to paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of
this section, unless repair is delayed according to paragraph (d)(4) of
this section. At any time before the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), you may choose to comply with the requirements in
this paragraph in lieu of the requirements of Sec. 63.104 as specified
in Table 10 to this subpart and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
The requirements in this paragraph do not apply to heat exchange
systems that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per
minute or less.
(1) You must perform monitoring to identify leaks of total
strippable
[[Page 69247]]
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) from each heat exchange system
subject to the requirements of this subpart according to the procedures
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Monitoring locations for closed-loop recirculation heat
exchange systems. For each closed loop recirculating heat exchange
system, you must collect and analyze a sample from the location(s)
described in either paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) Each cooling tower return line or any representative riser
within the cooling tower prior to exposure to air for each heat
exchange system.
(B) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s), so that each heat
exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a heat exchange system is
covered by the selected monitoring location(s).
(ii) Monitoring locations for once-through heat exchange systems.
For each once-through heat exchange system, you must collect and
analyze a sample from the location(s) described in paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. You may also elect to collect and
analyze an additional sample from the location(s) described in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
(A) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s), so that each heat
exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a heat exchange system is
covered by the selected monitoring location(s). The selected monitoring
location may be at a point where discharges from multiple heat exchange
systems are combined provided that the combined cooling water flow rate
at the monitoring location does not exceed 40,000 gallons per minute.
(B) The inlet water feed line for a once-through heat exchange
system prior to any heat exchanger. If multiple heat exchange systems
use the same water feed (i.e., inlet water from the same primary water
source), you may monitor at one representative location and use the
monitoring results for that sampling location for all heat exchange
systems that use that same water feed.
(iii) Monitoring method. You must determine the total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (in parts per million by volume (ppmv) as
methane) at each monitoring location using the ``Air Stripping Method
(Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Water Sources'' Revision Number One, dated
January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, appendix P: Cooling Tower
Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) using a
flame ionization detector (FID) analyzer for on-site determination as
described in Section 6.1 of the Modified El Paso Method.
(iv) Monitoring frequency and leak action level. For each heat
exchange system, you must initially monitor monthly for 6-months
beginning upon startup and monitor quarterly thereafter using a leak
action level defined as a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration
(as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv. If a leak is detected as
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this section, then you must monitor
monthly until the leak has been repaired according to the requirements
in paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section. Once the leak has been
repaired according to the requirements in paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of
this section, quarterly monitoring for the heat exchange system may
resume. The monitoring frequencies specified in this paragraph also
apply to the inlet water feed line for a once-through heat exchange
system, if monitoring of the inlet water feed is elected as provided in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
(v) Leak definition. A leak is defined as described in paragraph
(d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this section, as applicable.
(A) For once-through heat exchange systems for which the inlet
water feed is monitored as described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section, a leak is detected if the difference in the measurement value
of the sample taken from a location specified in paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section and the measurement value of the
corresponding sample taken from the location specified in paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section equals or exceeds the leak action level.
(B) For all other heat exchange systems, a leak is detected if a
measurement value of the sample taken from a location specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section equals or
exceeds the leak action level.
(2) If a leak is detected using the methods described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, you must repair the leak to reduce the measured
concentration to below the applicable leak action level as soon as
practicable, but no later than 45 days after identifying the leak,
except as specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Repair must
include re-monitoring at the monitoring location where the leak was
identified according to the method specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iii)
of this section to verify that the measured total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration is below the applicable leak action level.
Repair may also include performing the additional monitoring in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section to verify that the total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration is below the applicable leak action level.
Actions that can be taken to achieve repair include but are not limited
to:
(i) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as
welding the leak or replacing a tube;
(ii) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
(iii) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process
fluid;
(iv) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or
(v) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise removing the leaking heat
exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.
(3) If you detect a leak when monitoring a cooling tower return
line under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, you may conduct
additional monitoring of each heat exchanger or group of heat
exchangers associated with the heat exchange system for which the leak
was detected, as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section. If
no leaks are detected when monitoring according to the requirements of
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section, the heat exchange system is
considered to have met the repair requirements through re-monitoring of
the heat exchange system, as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(4) You may delay repair when one of the conditions in paragraph
(d)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section is met and the leak is less than the
delay of repair action level specified in paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this
section. You must determine if a delay of repair is necessary as soon
as practicable, but no later than 45 days after first identifying the
leak.
(i) If the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown and
the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration is initially and remains
less than the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods
during the delay of repair, then you may delay repair until the next
scheduled shutdown of the heat exchange system. If, during subsequent
monitoring, the delay of repair action level is exceeded, then you must
repair the leak within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the
leak was equal to or exceeded the delay of repair action level.
(ii) If the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel are not
available and the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration is
initially and remains less than the delay of repair action level for
all monitoring periods during the delay of repair, then you may delay
the repair for a maximum of 120 calendar
[[Page 69248]]
days. You must demonstrate that the necessary equipment, parts, or
personnel were not available. If, during subsequent monitoring, the
delay of repair action level is exceeded, then you must repair the leak
within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the leak was equal to
or exceeded the delay of repair action level.
(iii) The delay of repair action level is a total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv.
The delay of repair action level is assessed as described in paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section, as applicable.
(A) For once-through heat exchange systems for which the inlet
water feed is monitored as described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section, the delay of repair action level is exceeded if the difference
in the measurement value of the sample taken from a location specified
in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section and the measurement value of
the corresponding sample taken from the location specified in paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section equals or exceeds the delay of repair
action level.
(B) For all other heat exchange systems, the delay of repair action
level is exceeded if a measurement value of the sample taken from a
location specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (d)(1)(ii)(A) of
this section equals or exceeds the delay of repair action level.
0
14. Section 63.2492 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2492 How do I determine whether my process vent, storage
tank, or equipment is in ethylene oxide service?
To determine if process vents, storage tanks, and equipment leaks
are in ethylene oxide service as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), you must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section, as applicable.
(a) For each batch process vent or continuous process vent stream,
you must measure the flow rate and concentration of ethylene oxide of
each process vent as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Measurements must be made prior to any dilution of the vent
streams.
(2) Measurements may be made on the combined vent streams at an
MCPU or for each separate vent stream.
(3) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, as appropriate,
must be used for the selection of the sampling sites. For vents smaller
than 0.10 meter in diameter, sample at one point at the center of the
duct.
(4) The gas volumetric flow rate must be determined using Method 2,
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2, as
appropriate.
(5) The concentration of ethylene oxide must be determined using
Method 18 of appendix A-6 of 40 CFR part 60 or Method 320 of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 63.
(b) For storage tanks, you must measure the concentration of
ethylene oxide of the fluid stored in the storage tanks using Method
624.1 of 40 CFR part 136 or preparation by Method 5031 and analysis by
Method 8260D in the SW-846 Compendium. In lieu of preparation by SW-846
Method 5031, you may use SW-846 Method 5030B, as long as: You do not
use a preservative in the collected sample; you store the sample with
minimal headspace as cold as possible and at least below 4 degrees C;
and you analyze the sample as soon as possible, but in no case longer
than 7 days from the time the sample was collected. If you are
collecting a sample from a pressure vessel, you must maintain the
sample under pressure both during and following sampling.
(c) For equipment leaks, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Each piece of equipment within an MCPU that can reasonably be
expected to contain equipment in ethylene oxide service is presumed to
be in ethylene oxide service unless an owner or operator demonstrates
that the piece of equipment is not in ethylene oxide service. For a
piece of equipment to be considered not in ethylene oxide service, it
must be determined that the percent ethylene oxide content of the
process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment can be
reasonably expected to not exceed 0.1 percent by weight on an annual
average basis. For purposes of determining the percent ethylene oxide
content of the process fluid, you must use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-6 for gaseous process fluid, and Method 624.1 of 40 CFR part
136 or preparation by Method 5031 and analysis by Method 8260D in the
SW-846 Compendium for liquid process fluid. In lieu of preparation by
SW-846 Method 5031, you may use SW-846 Method 5030B, as long as: You do
not use a preservative in the collected sample; you store the sample
with minimal headspace as cold as possible and at least below 4 degrees
C; and you analyze the sample as soon as possible, but in no case
longer than 7 days from the time the sample was collected.
(2) Unless specified by the Administrator, you may use good
engineering judgment rather than the procedures specified in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section to determine that the percent ethylene oxide
content of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts equipment
does not exceed 0.1 percent by weight.
(3) You may revise your determination for whether a piece of
equipment is in ethylene oxide service by following the procedures in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or by documenting that a change in
the process or raw materials no longer causes the equipment to be in
ethylene oxide service.
(4) Samples used in determining the ethylene oxide content must be
representative of the process fluid that is contained in or contacts
the equipment.
0
15. Section 63.2493 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2493 What requirements must I meet for process vents, storage
tanks, or equipment that are in ethylene oxide service?
This section applies beginning no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.2445(i). In order to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limits and work practice standards specified in Tables 1,
2, and 4 to this subpart for process vents and storage tanks in
ethylene oxide service, you must meet the requirements specified in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. In order to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements specified in Table 6 to this subpart
for equipment in ethylene oxide service, you must meet the requirements
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(a) For initial compliance, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section, as applicable.
(1) If you choose to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare as specified in table
1, 2, or 4 to this subpart, then you must comply with Sec.
63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you
must conduct the initial visible emissions demonstration required by
Sec. 63.670(h) of subpart CC as specified in Sec. 63.2450(e)(5).
(2) If you choose to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control device
that reduces ethylene oxide by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by
weight as specified in table 1, 2, or 4 to this subpart, then you must
comply with Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the requirements in Sec.
63.983, and you must comply with paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (viii) of
this section.
(i) Conduct an initial performance test of the control device that
is used to comply with the percent reduction
[[Page 69249]]
requirement at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
(ii) Conduct the performance test according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.997 and Sec. 63.2450(g). Use Method 18 of appendix A-6 of 40
CFR part 60 or Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to determine
the ethylene oxide concentration. Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 of
40 CFR part 60 to select the sampling sites at each sampling location.
Determine the gas volumetric flowrate using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of
appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60. Use Method 4 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR
part 60 to convert the volumetric flowrate to a dry basis.
(iii) Calculate the mass emission rate of ethylene oxide entering
the control device and exiting the control device using Equations 5 and
6 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17DE19.002
Where:
EEtO,inlet, EEtO,outlet = Mass rate of
ethylene oxide at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, kilogram per hour.
CEtO,inlet, CEtO,outlet = Concentration of
ethylene oxide in the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the
control device, respectively, dry basis, parts per million by
volume.
MEtO = Molecular weight of ethylene oxide, 44.05 grams
per gram-mole.
Qinlet, Qoutlet = Flow rate of the gas stream
at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry
standard cubic meter per minute.
K = Constant, 2.494 x 10-\6\ (parts per million)-1 (gram-
mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram per gram) (minutes per
hour), where standard temperature (gram-mole per standard cubic
meter) is 20 [deg]C.
(iv) Calculate the percent reduction from the control device using
equation 7 of this subpart. You have demonstrated initial compliance if
the overall reduction of ethylene oxide is greater than or equal to
99.9 percent by weight.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17DE19.003
Where:
EEtO,inlet, EEtO,outlet = Mass rate of
ethylene oxide at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, kilogram per hour, calculated using Equations 5 and 6
of this subpart.
(v) If a new control device is installed, then conduct a
performance test of the new device following the procedures in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(vi) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
scrubber, then you must establish operating parameter limits by
monitoring the operating parameters specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(vi)(A) through (E) of this section during the performance test.
(A) Scrubber liquid-to-gas ratio (L/G), determined from the total
scrubber liquid inlet flow rate and the exit gas flow rate. Determine
the average L/G during the performance test as the average of the test
run averages.
(B) Scrubber liquid pH of the liquid in the reactant tank. The pH
may be measured at any point between the discharge from the scrubber
column and the inlet to the reactant tank. Determine the average pH
during the performance test as the average of the test run averages.
(C) Pressure drop of the scrubber column. Determine the average
pressure drop during the performance test as the average of the test
run averages.
(D) Temperature of the water entering the scrubber column. The
temperature may be measured at any point after the heat exchanger and
prior to entering the top of the scrubber column. Determine the average
inlet water temperature as the average of the test run averages.
(E) Liquid feed pressure to the wet scrubber column. Determine the
average liquid feed pressure as the average of the test run averages.
(vii) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
thermal oxidizer, then you must establish operating parameter limits by
monitoring the operating parameters specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(vii)(A) and (B) of this section during the performance test.
(A) Combustion chamber temperature. Determine the average
combustion chamber temperature during the performance test as the
average of the test run averages.
(B) Flue gas flow rate. Determine the average flue gas flow rate
during the performance test as the average of the test run averages.
(viii) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
control device other than a flare, scrubber, or thermal oxidizer, then
you must notify the Administrator of the operating parameters that you
plan to monitor during the performance test prior to establishing
operating parameter limits for the control device.
(3) If you choose to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control device
that reduces ethylene oxide to less than 1 ppmv as specified in table
1, 2, or 4 to this subpart, then you must comply with Sec.
63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you
must comply with either paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Install an FTIR CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 to continuously monitor the ethylene oxide
concentration at the exit of the control device. Comply with the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2450(j) for your CEMS.
(ii) If you do not install a CEMS under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of
this section.
(A) Conduct an initial performance test of the control device that
is used to comply with the concentration requirement at the outlet of
the control device.
(B) Conduct the performance test according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.997 and Sec. 63.2450(g). Use Method 18 of appendix A-6 of 40
CFR part 60 or Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to determine
the ethylene oxide concentration. You have demonstrated initial
compliance if the ethylene oxide concentration is less than 1 ppmv.
(C) Comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(v)
through (viii) of this section, as applicable.
(4) If you choose to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-flare control device
that reduces ethylene oxide to less than 5 pounds per year for all
combined process vents as specified in table 1 or 2 to this subpart,
then you must comply with
[[Page 69250]]
Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the requirements in Sec. 63.983, and
you must comply with paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Conduct an initial performance test of the control device that
is used to comply with the mass emission limit requirement at the
outlet of the control device.
(ii) Conduct the performance test according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.997 and Sec. 63.2450(g). Use Method 18 of appendix A-6 of 40
CFR part 60 or Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to determine
the ethylene oxide concentration. Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 of
40 CFR part 60 to select the sampling site. Determine the gas
volumetric flowrate using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A-2 of 40
CFR part 60. Use Method 4 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to convert
the volumetric flowrate to a dry basis.
(iii) Calculate the mass emission rate of ethylene oxide exiting
the control device using Equation 6 of this subpart. You have
demonstrated initial compliance if the ethylene oxide from all process
vents (controlled and uncontrolled) is less than 5 pounds per year when
combined.
(iv) Comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(v)
through (viii) of this section, as applicable.
(b) For continuous compliance, you must comply with paragraphs
(b)(1) through (6) of this section, as applicable.
(1) If you choose to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a flare as specified in table
1, 2, or 4 to this subpart, then you must comply with the requirements
in Sec. Sec. 63.983 and 63.2450(e)(4) through (6).
(2) Continuously monitor the ethylene oxide concentration at the
exit of the control device using an FTIR CEMS meeting the requirements
of Performance Specification 15 and Sec. 63.2450(j). If you use an
FTIR CEMS, you do not need to conduct the performance testing required
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or the operating parameter
monitoring required in paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section.
(3) Conduct a performance test no later than 60 months after the
previous performance test and reestablish operating parameter limits
following the procedures in paragraph (a)(2) through (4) of this
section. The Administrator may request a repeat performance test at any
time.
(4) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a
scrubber, then you must comply with Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the
requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you must meet the operating parameter
limits specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Minimum scrubber liquid-to-gas ratio (L/G), equal to the
average L/G measured during the most recent performance test. Determine
total scrubber liquid inlet flow rate with a flow sensor with a minimum
accuracy of at least 5 percent over the normal range of
flow measured, or 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons per minute),
whichever is greater. Determine exit gas flow rate with a flow sensor
with a minimum accuracy of at least 5 percent over the
normal range of flow measured, or 280 liters per minute (10 cubic feet
per minute), whichever is greater. Compliance with the minimum L/G
operating limit must be determined continuously on an instantaneous
basis.
(ii) Maximum scrubber liquid pH of the liquid in the reactant tank,
equal to the average pH measured during the most recent performance
test. Compliance with the pH operating limit must be determined
continuously on an instantaneous basis. Use a pH sensor with a minimum
accuracy of 0.2 pH units.
(iii) Maximum pressure drop across the scrubber column, equal to
the average pressure drop measured during the most recent performance
test. Compliance with the pressure drop operating limit must be
determined continuously on an instantaneous basis. Use pressure sensors
with a minimum accuracy of 5 percent over the normal
operating range or 0.12 kilopascals, whichever is greater.
(iv) Maximum temperature of the water entering the scrubber column,
equal to the average temperature measured during the most recent
performance test. Compliance with the inlet water temperature operating
limit must be determined continuously on an instantaneous basis. Use a
temperature sensor with a minimum accuracy of 1 percent
over the normal range of the temperature measured, expressed in degrees
Celsius, or 2.8 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater.
(v) Minimum liquid feed pressure to the scrubber column, equal to
the average feed pressure measured during the most recent performance
test. Compliance with the liquid feed pressure operating limit must be
determined continuously on an instantaneous basis. Use a pressure
sensor with a minimum accuracy of 5 percent over the normal
operating range or 0.12 kilopascals, whichever is greater.
(5) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a thermal
oxidizer, then you must comply with Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the
requirements in Sec. 63.983, and you must meet the operating parameter
limits specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section and
the requirements in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section.
(i) Minimum combustion chamber temperature, equal to the average
combustion chamber temperature measured during the most recent
performance test. Determine combustion chamber temperature with a
temperature sensor with a minimum accuracy of at least 1
percent over the normal range of temperature measured, expressed in
degrees Celsius, or 2.8 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater.
Compliance with the minimum combustion chamber temperature operating
limit must be determined continuously on an instantaneous basis.
(ii) Maximum flue gas flow rate, equal to the average flue gas flow
rate measured during the most recent performance test. Determine flue
gas flow rate with a flow sensor with a minimum accuracy of at least
5 percent over the normal range of flow measured, or 280
liters per minute (10 cubic feet per minute), whichever is greater.
Compliance with the maximum flue gas flow rate operating limit must be
determined continuously on an instantaneous basis.
(iii) You must maintain the thermal oxidizer in accordance with
good combustion practices that ensure proper combustion. Good
combustion practices include, but are not limited to, proper burner
maintenance, proper burner alignment, proper fuel to air distribution
and mixing, routine inspection, and preventative maintenance.
(6) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a control
device other than a flare, scrubber, or thermal oxidizer, then you must
comply with Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and (6) and the requirements in Sec.
63.983, and you must monitor the operating parameters identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(viii) of this section and meet the established
operating parameter limits to ensure continuous compliance. The
frequency of monitoring and averaging time will be determined based
upon the information provided to the Administrator.
(c) Pressure Vessels. If you have a storage tank in ethylene oxide
service that is considered a pressure vessel as defined in as defined
in Sec. 63.2550(i), then you must operate and maintain the pressure
vessel, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The pressure vessel must be designed to operate with no
detectable emissions at all times.
[[Page 69251]]
(2) Monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which
ethylene oxide could potentially be emitted by conducting initial and
annual performance tests using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7.
(3) Each instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv is a deviation.
(4) Estimate the flow rate and total regulated material emissions
from the defect. Assume the pressure vessel has been emitting for half
of the time since the last performance test, unless other information
supports a different assumption.
(5) Whenever ethylene oxide is in the pressure vessel, you must
operate the pressure vessel as a closed system that vents through a
closed vent system to a control device as specified in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) For closed vent systems, comply with Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and
(6) and the requirements in Sec. 63.983.
(ii) For a non-flare control device, comply with requirements as
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(iii) For a flare, comply with the requirements of Sec.
63.2450(e)(5).
Option 1 for Paragraph (d)
(d) Equipment in ethylene oxide service. Except as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) and (e) of this section, for equipment in
ethylene oxide service as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), you must comply
with the requirements of subpart UU or subpart H of this part 63, or 40
CFR part 65, subpart F.
(1) For pumps in ethylene oxide service, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The instrument reading that defines a leak for pumps is 1,000
parts per million or greater.
(ii) The monitoring period for pumps is monthly.
(iii) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.
(2) For connectors in ethylene oxide service, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The instrument reading that defines a leak for connectors is
500 parts per million or greater.
(ii) The monitoring period for connectors is once every 12 months.
(iii) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.
(3) For each light liquid pump or connector in ethylene oxide
service that is added to an affected source, and for each light liquid
pump or connector in ethylene oxide service that replaces a light
liquid pump or connector in ethylene oxide service, you must initially
monitor for leaks within 5 days after initial startup of the equipment.
(4) Pressure relief devices in ethylene oxide service must not vent
directly to atmosphere.
Option 2 for Paragraph (d)
(d) Equipment in ethylene oxide service. Except as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) and (e) of this section, for equipment in
ethylene oxide service as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), you must comply
with the requirements of subpart UU or subpart H of this part 63, or 40
CFR part 65, subpart F.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, for
pumps in ethylene oxide service, you must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The instrument reading that defines a leak for pumps is 1,000
parts per million or greater.
(ii) The monitoring period for pumps is monthly.
(iii) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, for
connectors in ethylene oxide service, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The instrument reading that defines a leak for connectors is
500 parts per million or greater.
(ii) The monitoring period for connectors is once every 12 months.
(iii) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.
(3) If you operate an MCPU at the facility commonly called Huntsman
Performance at 5451 Jefferson Chemical Road in Conroe, Texas or Lanxess
Corporation at 2151 King Street Extension in Charleston, SC, then you
must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of
this section in lieu of the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(i) For pumps and valves in ethylene oxide service, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this
section.
(A) You must install and operate leakless pumps as defined in Sec.
63.2550(i), and monitor the pumps annually.
(B) You must comply with either paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B)(1) or (2)
for valves.
(1) Install and operate a leakless valve as defined in Sec.
63.2550(i) and monitor the valve annually or
(2) Operate any valve that is not considered a leakless valve as
defined in Sec. 63.2550(i) and monitor the valve quarterly.
(C) Valves and pumps must be monitored using the methods specified
in Sec. 63.180(b) and (c), Sec. 63.1023(b) and (c), or Sec.
65.104(b) and (c).
(D) For valves and pumps, the instrument reading that defines a
leak is any value above the measured background concentration.
(E) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected. A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5
calendar days after the leak is detected. Following repair, the valve
or pump must be returned to operation as required in paragraphs
(d)(3)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(ii) For connectors in ethylene oxide service, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) The instrument reading that defines a leak for connectors is
100 parts per million or greater.
(B) The monitoring period for connectors is once every month.
(C) When a leak is detected, it must be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected. A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5
calendar days after the leak is detected. Following repair, the
connector must be returned to operation as required in paragraphs
(d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(4) For each light liquid pump, valve, or connector in ethylene
oxide service that is added to an affected source, and for each light
liquid pump, valve, or connector in ethylene oxide service that
replaces a light liquid pump, valve, or connector in ethylene oxide
service, you must initially monitor for leaks within 5 days after
initial startup of the equipment.
(5) Pressure relief devices in ethylene oxide service must not vent
directly to atmosphere.
(e) The referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (15) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this section.
(1) Sec. 63.163(c)(3) of subpart H.
(2) Sec. 63.163(e) of subpart H.
(3) The second sentence of Sec. 63.181(d)(5)(i) of subpart H.
(4) Sec. 63.1026(b)(3) of subpart UU.
[[Page 69252]]
(5) Sec. 63.1026(e) of subpart UU.
(6) The phrase (except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
(7) The phrase (except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
(8) The second sentence of Sec. 65.105(f)(4)(i) of subpart F.
(9) Sec. 65.107(b)(3) of subpart F.
(10) Sec. 65.107(e) of subpart F.
(11) The phrase (except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 65.109(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart F.
(12) The phrase (except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 65.112(b)(1) of subpart F.
(13) The last sentence of Sec. 65.115(b)(1) of subpart F.
(14) The last sentence of Sec. 65.115(b)(2) of subpart F.
(15) For flares complying with Sec. 63.2450(e)(5), the following
provisions do not apply:
(i) Sec. 63.172(d);
(ii) Sec. 63.180(e);
(iii) Sec. 63.181(g)(1)(iii);
(iv) The phrase ``including periods when a flare pilot light system
does not have a flame'' from Sec. 63.181(g)(2)(i);
(v) Sec. 63.1034(b)(2)(iii); and
(vi) Sec. 65.115(b)(2).
(16) Requirements for maintenance vents in Sec. 63.2455(d).
0
16. Section 63.2495 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2495 How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) You must comply with the emission limitations and work practice
standards contained in tables 1 through 7 of this subpart for all HAP
that are generated in the MCPU and that are not included in
consumption, as defined in Sec. 63.2550. If any vent stream routed to
the combustion control is a halogenated vent stream, as defined in
Sec. 63.2550, then hydrogen halides that are generated as a result of
combustion control must be controlled according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.2450(e)(4) and the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the
requirements referenced therein.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.2500 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2500 How do I comply with emissions averaging?
(a) For an existing source, you may elect to comply with the
percent reduction emission limitations in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 to
this subpart by complying with the emissions averaging provisions
specified in Sec. 63.150, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), Sec. 63.150(f)(2) does not apply when demonstrating
compliance with this section.
0
18. Section 63.2505 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(6)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2505 How do I comply with the alternative standard?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) You must comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4)
and the requirements in Sec. 63.983 and the requirements referenced
therein for closed-vent systems.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Demonstrate initial compliance with the 95 percent reduction by
conducting a performance test and setting a site-specific operating
limit(s) for the scrubber in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(4) and the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the requirements
referenced therein. You must submit the results of the initial
compliance demonstration in the notification of compliance status
report. If the performance test report is submitted electronically
through the EPA's CEDRI in accordance with Sec. 63.2520(f), the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be submitted in the notification of
compliance status report in lieu of the performance test results. The
performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the
notification of compliance status report is submitted.
(ii) Install, operate, and maintain CPMS for the scrubber as
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.994(c) and 63.2450(k), instead of as
specified in Sec. 63.1258(b)(5)(i)(C). You must also comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4), as applicable.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 63.2515 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.6(h)(4) and (5),
63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) through (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified.
* * * * *
(d) Supplement to Notification of Compliance Status. You must also
submit supplements to the Notification of Compliance Status as
specified in Sec. 63.2520(d)(3) through (5) of this section.
0
20. Section 63.2520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraph (c)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(8);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and paragraph (d)(2)(ii);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (d)(3) through (5);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text, paragraphs (e)(2) through
(4), paragraph (e)(5)(ii) introductory text, and paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(A) and (B);
0
f. Adding paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(D);
0
g. Revising paragraph (e)(5)(iii) introductory text, paragraph
(e)(5)(iii)(A) through(F), and (e)(5)(iii)(I);
0
h. Adding paragraphs (e)(5)(iii)(M) and (N);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (e)(7) and (8);
0
j. Adding paragraphs (e)(11) through (17), and (f) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(c) Precompliance report. You must submit a precompliance report to
request approval for any of the items in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8)
of this section. We will either approve or disapprove the report within
90 days after we receive it. If we disapprove the report, you must
still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work practice
standards in this subpart by the compliance date. To change any of the
information submitted in the report, you must notify us 60 days before
the planned change is to be implemented.
* * * * *
(2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify
that control devices subject to Sec. 63.2450(k)(6) are operating as
designed.
* * * * *
(8) For halogen reduction device other than a scrubber, procedures
for establishing monitoring parameters.
(d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance
status report must contain the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(2) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
[[Page 69253]]
(2) * * *
(ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests,
engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments,
inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial
compliance according to Sec. Sec. 63.2455 through 63.2485. For
performance tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and
analysis procedures and quality assurance procedures. If the
performance test report is submitted electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, the process
unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be submitted in the notification of
compliance status report in lieu of the performance test results. The
performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the
notification of compliance status report is submitted.
* * * * *
(3) For flares subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.2450(e)(5),
you must also submit the information in this paragraph in a supplement
to the Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the
first applicable compliance date for flare monitoring. In lieu of the
information required in Sec. 63.987(b) of subpart SS, the supplement
to the Notification of Compliance Status must include flare design
(e.g., steam-assisted, air-assisted, non-assisted, or pressure-assisted
multi-point); all visible emission readings, heat content
determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the initial visible emissions demonstration
required by Sec. 63.670(h) of subpart CC, as applicable; and all
periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(4) For pressure relief devices subject to the pressure release
management work practice standards in Sec. 63.2480(e)(3), you must
also submit the information listed in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this section in a supplement to the Notification of Compliance Status
within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for pressure
relief device monitoring.
(i) A description of the monitoring system to be implemented,
including the relief devices and process parameters to be monitored,
and a description of the alarms or other methods by which operators
will be notified of a pressure release.
(ii) A description of the prevention measures to be implemented for
each affected pressure relief device.
(5) For process vents, storage tanks, and equipment leaks subject
to the requirements of Sec. 63.2493, you must also submit the
information in this paragraph in a supplement to the Notification of
Compliance Status within 150 days after the first applicable compliance
date. The supplement to the Notification of Compliance Status must
identify all process vents, storage tanks, and equipment that are in
ethylene oxide service as defined in Sec. 63.2550, the method(s) used
to control ethylene oxide emissions from each process vent and storage
tank (i.e., use of a flare, scrubber, or other control device), the
method(s) used to control ethylene oxide emissions from equipment
(i.e., subpart UU or subpart H of this part 63, or 40 CFR part 65,
subpart F), and the information specified in paragraphs (d)(5)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) For process vents, include all uncontrolled, undiluted ethylene
oxide concentration measurements, and the calculations you used to
determine the total uncontrolled, undiluted ethylene oxide mass
emission rate for the sum of all vent gas streams.
(B) For storage tanks, include the concentration of ethylene oxide
of the fluid stored in each storage tank.
(C) For equipment, include the percent ethylene oxide content of
the process fluid and the method used to determine it, and identify the
location of each leakless pump and valve in operation.
(e) Compliance report. The compliance report must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (17) of this
section. On and after [date three years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit all subsequent
reports to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through the
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate
electronic 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 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 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. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, CORE CBI Office, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02),
Attention: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Sector Lead,
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 earlier in
this paragraph.
* * * * *
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report. If your report is submitted via CEDRI, the certifier's
electronic signature during the submission process replaces this
requirement.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when
the report is submitted via CEDRI.
(4) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the
compliance report must include records that the procedures specified in
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) were followed or
documentation of actions taken that are not consistent with the SSMP,
and include a brief description of each malfunction. On and after [date
3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], this paragraph no longer applies; however, for historical
compliance purposes, a copy of the plan must be retained and available
on-site for five years after [date 3 years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register].
(5) * * *
(ii) For each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit,
and work practice standard that occurs at an affected source where you
are not using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the
emission limit or work practice standard in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)(A) through (D) of this
section. This includes periods of SSM.
(A) The total operating time in hours of the affected source during
the reporting period.
(B) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(D) of this section,
information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including
unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action
taken.
* * * * *
(D) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B) of this section no longer applies.
Instead,
[[Page 69254]]
report information for each deviation to meet an applicable standard.
For each instance, report the start date, start time and duration in
hours of each deviation. For each deviation, the report must include a
list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity
in pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit,
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, the cause
of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), as
applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply
with an emission limit in this subpart, you must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(5)(iii)(A) through (N) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM.
(A) The start date, start time, and duration in hours that each CMS
was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(B) The start date, start time, and duration in hours that each
CEMS was out-of-control and a description of the corrective actions
taken.
(C) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(5)(iii)(M) of this
section, the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(D) The total duration in hours of all deviations for each CMS
during the reporting period, the total operating time in hours of the
affected source during the reporting period, and the total duration as
a percent of the total operating time of the affected source during
that reporting period.
(E) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(5)(iii)(N) of this
section, a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(F) The total duration in hours of CMS downtime for each CMS during
the reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a
percent of the total operating time of the affected source during that
reporting period.
* * * * *
(I) The monitoring equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s)
and the pollutant or parameter monitored.
* * * * *
(M) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraph (e)(5)(iii)(C) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, report the number of deviation to meet an applicable standard.
For each instance, report the start date, start time and duration in
hours of each deviation. For each deviation, the report must include a
list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity
in pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit,
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), as
applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(N) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraph (e)(5)(iii)(E) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, report a breakdown of the total duration in hours of the
deviations during the reporting period into those that are due control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
* * * * *
(7) Include each new operating scenario which has been operated
since the time period covered by the last compliance report and has not
been submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a
previous compliance report. For each new operating scenario, you must
report the information specified in Sec. 63.2525(b) and provide
verification that the operating conditions for any associated control
or treatment device have not been exceeded and that any required
calculations and engineering analyses have been performed. For the
purposes of this paragraph, a revised operating scenario for an
existing process is considered to be a new operating scenario.
(8) For process units added to a PUG, you must report the
description and rationale specified in Sec. 63.2525(i)(4). You must
report your primary product redeterminations specified in Sec.
63.2525(i)(5).
* * * * *
(11) For each flare subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(5), the compliance report must include the items specified
in paragraphs (e)(11)(i) through (vi) of this section in lieu of the
information required in Sec. 63.999(c)(3) of subpart SS.
(i) Records as specified in Sec. 63.2525(m)(1) of this section for
each 15-minute block during which there was at least one minute when
regulated material is routed to a flare and no pilot flame is present.
Include the start and stop time and date of each 15-minute block.
(ii) Visible emission records as specified in Sec.
63.2525(m)(2)(iv) for each period of 2 consecutive hours during which
visible emissions exceeded a total of 5 minutes.
(iii) The periods specified in Sec. 63.2525(m)(6). Indicate the
date and start and end times for each period, and the net heating value
operating parameter(s) determined following the methods in Sec.
63.670(k) through (n) of subpart CC as applicable.
(iv) For flaring events meeting the criteria in Sec. 63.670(o)(3)
of subpart CC:
(A) The start and stop time and date of the flaring event.
(B) The length of time in minutes for which emissions were visible
from the flare during the event.
(C) For steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-assisted flares, the
start date, start time, and duration for periods of time that the flare
tip velocity exceeds the maximum flare tip velocity determined using
the methods in Sec. 63.670(d)(2) of subpart CC and the maximum 15-
minute block average flare tip velocity in ft/sec recorded during the
event.
(D) Results of the root cause and corrective actions analysis
completed during the reporting period, including the corrective actions
implemented during the reporting period and, if applicable, the
implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be
implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
(v) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, the periods of time
when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the burners
operating outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications.
Indicate the date and start and end times for each period.
(vi) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, the periods of time
when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a
stage should not be in operation and is or when a stage should be in
operation and is not. Indicate the date and start and end times for
each period.
(12) For bypass lines subject to the requirements Sec.
63.2450(e)(6), the compliance report must include the start date, start
time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard
cubic feet, the concentration of organic HAP in the gas in parts per
million by volume and the resulting mass emissions of organic HAP in
pounds that bypass a control device. For periods when the flow
indicator is not operating, report the start date, start time, and
duration in hours.
(13) For each nonregenerative adsorber and regenerative adsorber
that is regenerated offsite subject to the
[[Page 69255]]
requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(7), you must report each instance when
breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 63.2550(i), is detected between the
first and second adsorber and the adsorber is not replaced according to
Sec. 63.2450(e)(7)(iii)(A).
(14) For any maintenance vent release exceeding the applicable
limits in Sec. 63.2455(d)(1), the compliance report must include the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(14)(i) through (iv) of this
section. For the purposes of this reporting requirement, if you comply
with Sec. 63.2455(d)(1)(iv) then you must report each venting event
conducted under those provisions and include an explanation for each
event as to why utilization of this alternative was required.
(i) Identification of the maintenance vent and the equipment served
by the maintenance vent.
(ii) The date and time the maintenance vent was opened to the
atmosphere.
(iii) The lower explosive limit in percent, vessel pressure in
psig, or mass in pounds of VOC in the equipment, as applicable, at the
start of atmospheric venting. If the 5 psig vessel pressure option in
Sec. 63.2455(d)(1)(ii) was used and active purging was initiated while
the lower explosive limit was 10 percent or greater, also include the
lower explosive limit of the vapors at the time active purging was
initiated.
(iv) An estimate of the mass in pounds of organic HAP released
during the entire atmospheric venting event.
(15) Compliance reports for pressure relief devices subject to the
requirements Sec. 63.2480(e) must include the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(15)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor
service, pursuant to Sec. 63.2480(e)(2)(i), report the dates for all
instrument readings of 500 ppmv or greater.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor
service subject to Sec. 63.2480(e)(2)(ii), report the dates of
instrument monitoring conducted.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec. 63.2480(e)(2)(iii), report each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the start date, start time, and duration of the
pressure release and estimate of the mass quantity in pounds of each
organic HAP released; the results of any root cause analysis and
corrective action analysis completed during the reporting period,
including the corrective actions implemented during the reporting
period; and, if applicable, the implementation schedule for planned
corrective actions to be implemented subsequent to the reporting
period.
(16) For each heat exchange system, beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in 63.2445(g), the reporting requirements of
Sec. 63.104(f)(2) no longer apply; instead, the compliance report must
include the information specified in paragraphs (e)(16)(i) through (v)
of this section.
(i) The number of heat exchange systems at the plant site subject
to the monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.2490(d).
(ii) The number of heat exchange systems at the plant site found to
be leaking.
(iii) For each monitoring location where the total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration was determined to be equal to or greater than
the applicable leak definitions specified in Sec. 63.2490(d)(1)(v),
identification of the monitoring location (e.g., unique monitoring
location or heat exchange system ID number), the measured total
strippable hydrocarbon concentration in ppmv as methane, the date the
leak was first identified, and, if applicable, the date the source of
the leak was identified;
(iv) For leaks that were repaired during the reporting period
(including delayed repairs), identification of the monitoring location
associated with the repaired leak, the total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration in ppmv as methane measured during re-monitoring to
verify repair, and the re-monitoring date (i.e., the effective date of
repair); and
(v) For each delayed repair, identification of the monitoring
location associated with the leak for which repair is delayed, the date
when the delay of repair began, the date the repair is expected to be
completed (if the leak is not repaired during the reporting period),
the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration in ppmv as methane and
date of each monitoring event conducted on the delayed repair during
the reporting period, and an estimate in pounds of the potential
strippable hydrocarbon emissions over the reporting period associated
with the delayed repair.
(17) For process vents and storage tanks in ethylene oxide service
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.2493, the compliance report
must include:
(i) The periods specified in Sec. 63.2525(s)(4). Indicate the date
and start and end times for each period.
(ii) If you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv of a
leak when monitoring a pressure vessel in accordance with Sec.
63.2493(c)(2), submit a copy of the records specified in Sec.
63.2525(s)(5)(ii).
(iii) Reports for equipment subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.2493 as specified in paragraph (e)(9) of this section.
(f) Performance test reports. Beginning no later than [date 60 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you
must submit performance test reports in accordance with this paragraph.
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
(f)(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 the
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 paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) 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. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, CORE CBI Office,
U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with
the CBI omitted must
[[Page 69256]]
be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph
(f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(g) Performance evaluation reports. Beginning no later than [date
60 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], you must start submitting performance evaluation reports in
accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each continuous monitoring system performance evaluation (as
defined in Sec. 63.2), you must submit the results of the performance
evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(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 paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) 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. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, CORE CBI Office,
U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, 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 paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(h) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report 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 (h)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(i) 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 majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this paragraph,
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
21. Section 63.2525 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a), (e)(1)(ii), (f), (h), and (j), and adding paragraphs
(l) through (u) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2525 What records must I keep?
You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (t)
of this section.
(a) Except as specified in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4), Sec. 63.2480(f),
Sec. 63.2485(p) and (q), and paragraph (t) of this section, each
applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63 and in
referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this part 63 and in
referenced subpart F of 40 CFR part 65.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) You control the Group 2 batch process vents using a flare that
meets the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.987 or 63.2450(e)(5), as
applicable.
* * * * *
[[Page 69257]]
(f) A record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe
conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.2450(p).
* * * * *
(h) Except as specified in paragraph (l) of this section, for each
CEMS, you must keep 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.
* * * * *
(j) In the SSMP required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you are not required
to include Group 2 emission points, unless those emission points are
used in an emissions average. For equipment leaks, the SSMP requirement
is limited to control devices and is optional for other equipment. On
and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
(l) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), paragraph (h) of this section no longer applies. Instead,
for each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard, you must keep a record of the information specified
in paragraph (l)(1) through (3) of this section. The records shall be
maintained as specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(1) In the event that an affected unit does not meet an applicable
standard, record the number of deviations. For each deviation record
the date, time and duration of each deviation.
(2) For each deviation from 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.
(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.2450(u) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(m) For each flare subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(5), you must keep records specified in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (15) of this section in lieu of the information required in
Sec. 63.998(a)(1) of subpart SS.
(1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to
detect the presence of a pilot flame as required in Sec. 63.670(b) of
subpart CC and Sec. 63.2450(e)(5)(vii)(D) for a minimum of 2 years.
Retain records of each 15-minute block during which there was at least
one minute that no pilot flame is present when regulated material is
routed to a flare for a minimum of 5 years. For a pressure-assisted
multi-point flare that uses cross-lighting, retain records of each 15-
minute block during which there was at least one minute that no pilot
flame is present on each stage when regulated material is routed to a
flare for a minimum of 5 years.
(2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations or video
surveillance images required in Sec. 63.670(h) of subpart CC as
specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable, for a minimum of 3 years.
(i) To determine when visible emissions observations are required,
the record must identify all periods when regulated material is vented
to the flare.
(ii) If visible emissions observations are performed using Method
22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, then the record must identify
whether the visible emissions observation was performed, the results of
each observation, total duration of observed visible emissions, and
whether it was a 5-minute or 2-hour observation. Record the date and
start time of each visible emissions observation.
(iii) If a video surveillance camera is used, then the record must
include all video surveillance images recorded, with time and date
stamps.
(iv) For each 2 hour period for which visible emissions are
observed for more than 5 minutes in 2 consecutive hours, then the
record must include the date and start and end time of the 2 hour
period and an estimate of the cumulative number of minutes in the 2
hour period for which emissions were visible.
(3) The 15-minute block average cumulative flows for flare vent gas
and, if applicable, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix
assist air specified to be monitored under Sec. 63.670(i) of subpart
CC, along with the date and time interval for the 15-minute block. If
multiple monitoring locations are used to determine cumulative vent gas
flow, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix assist air, then
retain records of the 15-minute block average flows for each monitoring
location for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute block
average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent calculations for a
minimum of 5 years. If pressure and temperature monitoring is used,
then retain records of the 15-minute block average temperature,
pressure, and molecular weight of the flare vent gas or assist gas
stream for each measurement location used to determine the 15-minute
block average cumulative flows for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the
15-minute block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent
calculations for a minimum of 5 years.
(4) The flare vent gas compositions specified to be monitored under
Sec. 63.670(j) of subpart CC. Retain records of individual component
concentrations from each compositional analysis for a minimum of 2
years. If an NHVvg analyzer is used, retain records of the 15-minute
block average values for a minimum of 5 years.
(5) Each 15-minute block average operating parameter calculated
following the methods specified in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) of
subpart CC, as applicable.
(6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the
applicable operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) of
subpart CC and Sec. 63.2450(e)(5)(vii) when regulated material is
being routed to the flare.
(7) All periods during which you do not perform flare monitoring
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.670(g) through (j) of subpart
CC.
(8) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, if a stage of burners
on the flare uses cross-lighting, then a record of any changes made to
the distance between burners.
(9) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, all periods when the
pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show burners are operating
outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the
date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s)
and number of burners affected, and the range of manufacturer's
specifications.
(10) For pressure-assisted multi-point flares, all periods when the
staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of
the pressure-assisted multi-point flare should not be in operation and
when a stage of the pressure-assisted multi-point flare should be in
operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period,
whether the stage was supposed to be open, but was closed or vice
versa, and the stage(s) and number of burners affected.
(11) Records of periods when there is flow of vent gas to the
flare, but when there is no flow of regulated material to the flare,
including the start and stop time and dates of periods of no regulated
material flow.
(12) Records when the flow of vent gas exceeds the smokeless
capacity of the flare, including start and stop time and dates of the
flaring event.
(13) Records of the root cause analysis and corrective action
analysis conducted as required in Sec. 63.670(o)(3) of subpart CC,
including an
[[Page 69258]]
identification of the affected flare, the date and duration of the
event, a statement noting whether the event resulted from the same root
cause(s) identified in a previous analysis and either a description of
the recommended corrective action(s) or an explanation of why
corrective action is not necessary under Sec. 63.670(o)(5)(i) of
subpart CC.
(14) For any corrective action analysis for which implementation of
corrective actions are required in Sec. 63.670(o)(5) of subpart CC, a
description of the corrective action(s) completed within the first 45
days following the discharge and, for action(s) not already completed,
a schedule for implementation, including proposed commencement and
completion dates.
(15) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (xi).
(n) For each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in Sec. 63.2450(e)(6), you must maintain records
sufficient to determine whether or not the detected flow included flow
requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass line requiring
control that is released either directly to the atmosphere or to a
control device not meeting the requirements specified in Tables 1
through 7 to this subpart, you must include an estimate of the volume
of gas, the concentration of organic HAP in the gas and the resulting
emissions of organic HAP that bypassed the control device using process
knowledge and engineering estimates.
(o) For each nonregenerative adsorber and regenerative adsorber
that is regenerated offsite subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(7), you must keep the applicable records specified in (o)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Outlet HAP or TOC concentration for each adsorber bed measured
during each performance test conducted.
(2) Daily outlet HAP or TOC concentration.
(3) Date and time you last replaced the adsorbent.
(4) If you conduct monitoring less frequently than daily as
specified in 63.2450(e)(7)(iii)(B), you must record the average life of
the bed.
(p) For each maintenance vent opening subject to the requirements
in Sec. 63.2455(d), you must keep the applicable records specified in
(p)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must maintain standard site procedures used to deinventory
equipment for safety purposes (e.g., hot work or vessel entry
procedures) to document the procedures used to meet the requirements in
Sec. 63.2455(d). The current copy of the procedures must be retained
and available on-site at all times. Previous versions of the standard
site procedures, as applicable, must be retained for five years.
(2) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2455(d))(1)(i)
and the lower explosive limit at the time of the vessel opening exceeds
10 percent, identification of the maintenance vent, the process units
or equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of
maintenance vent opening, and the lower explosive limit at the time of
the vessel opening.
(3) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2455(d)(1)(ii)
and either the vessel pressure at the time of the vessel opening
exceeds 5 psig or the lower explosive limit at the time of the active
purging was initiated exceeds 10 percent, identification of the
maintenance vent, the process units or equipment associated with the
maintenance vent, the date of maintenance vent opening, the pressure of
the vessel or equipment at the time of discharge to the atmosphere and,
if applicable, the lower explosive limit of the vapors in the equipment
when active purging was initiated.
(4) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2455(d)(1)(iii),
records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment and
the type and size limits of equipment that contain less than 50 pounds
of VOC at the time of maintenance vent opening. For each maintenance
vent opening for which the deinventory procedures specified in
paragraph (p)(1) of this section are not followed or for which the
equipment opened exceeds the type and size limits established in the
records specified in this paragraph, identification of the maintenance
vent, the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance
vent, the date of maintenance vent opening, and records used to
estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment at the time the
maintenance vent was opened to the atmosphere.
(5) If complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.2455(d)(1)(iv),
identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment
associated with the maintenance vent, records documenting actions taken
to comply with other applicable alternatives and why utilization of
this alternative was required, the date of maintenance vent opening,
the equipment pressure and lower explosive limit of the vapors in the
equipment at the time of discharge, an indication of whether active
purging was performed and the pressure of the equipment during the
installation or removal of the blind if active purging was used, the
duration the maintenance vent was open during the blind installation or
removal process, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC
in the equipment at the time the maintenance vent was opened to the
atmosphere for each applicable maintenance vent opening.
(q) For each pressure relief device subject to the pressure release
management work practice standards in Sec. 63.2480(e), you must keep
the records specified in paragraphs (q)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Records of the prevention measures implemented as required in
Sec. 63.2480(e)(3)(ii).
(2) Records of the number of releases during each calendar year and
the number of those releases for which the root cause was determined to
be a force majeure event. Keep these records for the current calendar
year and the past five calendar years.
(3) For each release to the atmosphere, you must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (q)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The start and end time and date of each pressure release to the
atmosphere.
(ii) Records of any data, assumptions, and calculations used to
estimate of the mass quantity of each organic HAP released during the
event.
(iii) Records of the root cause analysis and corrective action
analysis conducted as required in Sec. 63.2480(e)(3)(iii), including
an identification of the affected facility, a statement noting whether
the event resulted from the same root cause(s) identified in a previous
analysis and either a description of the recommended corrective
action(s) or an explanation of why corrective action is not necessary
under Sec. 63.2480(e)(7)(i).
(iv) For any corrective action analysis for which implementation of
corrective actions are required in Sec. 63.2480(e)(7), a description
of the corrective action(s) completed within the first 45 days
following the discharge and, for action(s) not already completed, a
schedule for implementation, including proposed commencement and
completion dates.
(r) For each heat exchange system, beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in 63.2445(g), the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.104(f)(1) no longer apply; instead, you must
keep records in paragraphs (r)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.2490(d) that indicate a
leak, the date the leak was detected, or, if applicable, the basis for
determining there is no leak.
(2) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.
[[Page 69259]]
(3) The method or procedures used to confirm repair of a leak and
the date the repair was confirmed.
(4) Documentation of delay of repair as specified in paragraphs
(r)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The reason(s) for delaying repair.
(ii) A schedule for completing the repair as soon as practical.
(iii) The date and concentration of the leak as first identified
and the results of all subsequent monitoring events during the delay of
repair.
(iv) An estimate of the potential strippable hydrocarbon emissions
from the leaking heat exchange system or heat exchanger for each
required delay of repair monitoring interval following the procedures
in paragraphs (r)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Determine the leak concentration as specified in Sec.
63.2490(d) and convert the stripping gas leak concentration (in ppmv as
methane) to an equivalent liquid concentration, in parts per million by
weight (ppmw), using equation 7-1 from ``Air Stripping Method (Modified
El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Water Sources'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003,
Sampling Procedures Manual, appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring,
prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) and the molecular weight
of 16 grams per mole (g/mol) for methane.
(B) Determine the mass flow rate of the cooling water at the
monitoring location where the leak was detected. If the monitoring
location is an individual cooling tower riser, determine the total
cooling water mass flow rate to the cooling tower. Cooling water mass
flow rates may be determined using direct measurement, pump curves,
heat balance calculations, or other engineering methods. Volumetric
flow measurements may be used and converted to mass flow rates using
the density of water at the specific monitoring location temperature or
using the default density of water at 25 degrees Celsius, which is 997
kilograms per cubic meter or 8.32 pounds per gallon.
(C) For delay of repair monitoring intervals prior to repair of the
leak, calculate the potential strippable hydrocarbon emissions for the
leaking heat exchange system or heat exchanger for the monitoring
interval by multiplying the leak concentration in the cooling water,
ppmw, determined in (r)(4)(iv)(A) of this section, by the mass flow
rate of the cooling water determined in (r)(4)(iv)(B) of this section
and by the duration of the delay of repair monitoring interval. The
duration of the delay of repair monitoring interval is the time period
starting at midnight on the day of the previous monitoring event or at
midnight on the day the repair would have had to be completed if the
repair had not been delayed, whichever is later, and ending at midnight
of the day the of the current monitoring event.
(D) For delay of repair monitoring intervals ending with a repaired
leak, calculate the potential strippable hydrocarbon emissions for the
leaking heat exchange system or heat exchanger for the final delay of
repair monitoring interval by multiplying the duration of the final
delay of repair monitoring interval by the leak concentration and
cooling water flow rates determined for the last monitoring event prior
to the re-monitoring event used to verify the leak was repaired. The
duration of the final delay of repair monitoring interval is the time
period starting at midnight of the day of the last monitoring event
prior to re-monitoring to verify the leak was repaired and ending at
the time of the re-monitoring event that verified that the leak was
repaired.
(s) For process vents and storage tanks in ethylene oxide service
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.2493, you must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (5) of this section in addition
to those records specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Records
for equipment in ethylene oxide service subject to the requirements of
Sec. 63.2493 are specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) For process vents, include all uncontrolled, undiluted ethylene
oxide concentration measurements, and the calculations you used to
determine the total uncontrolled, undiluted ethylene oxide mass
emission rate for the sum of all vent gas streams.
(2) For storage tanks, records of the concentration of ethylene
oxide of the fluid stored in each storage tank.
(3) For equipment, records of the percent ethylene oxide content of
the process fluid and the method used to determine it, and records
identifying the location of each leakless pump and valve in operation.
(4) If you vent emissions through a closed-vent system to a non-
flare control device, then you must keep records of all periods during
which operating values are outside of the applicable operating limits
specified in Sec. 63.2493(b)(4) through (6) when regulated material is
being routed to the non-flare control device. The record must specify
the operating parameter, the applicable limit, and the highest (for
maximum operating limits) or lowest (for minimum operating limits)
value recorded during the period.
(5) For pressure vessels subject to Sec. 63.2493(c), records as
specified in paragraphs (s)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The date of each performance test conducted according to Sec.
63.2493(c)(2).
(ii) The instrument reading of each performance test conducted
according to Sec. 63.2493(c)(2), including the following:
(A) Date each defect was detected.
(B) Date of the next performance test that shows the instrument
reading is less than 500 ppmv.
(C) Start and end dates of each period after the date in paragraph
(s)(5)(ii)(A) of this section when the pressure vessel was completely
empty.
(D) Estimated emissions from each defect.
(t) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
(u) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (u)(1)
through (8) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Sec. 63.103(c)(2)(i) of subpart F.
(2) Sec. 63.103(c)(2)(ii) of subpart F.
(3) The phrase ``start-up, shutdown and malfunction and'' from
Sec. 63.103(c)(3) of subpart F.
(4) The phrase ``other than startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions
(e.g., a temperature reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler),'' from Sec.
63.152(g)(1)(i) of subpart G.
(5) The phrase ``other than a startup, shutdown, or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.152(g)(1)(ii)(C) of subpart G.
(6) The phrase ``other than startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions''
from Sec. 63.152(g)(1)(iii) of subpart G.
(7) The phrase ``other than a startup, shutdown, or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.152(g)(2)(iii) of subpart G.
(8) Sec. 63.152(g)(2)(iv)(A) of subpart G.
0
22. Section 63.2535 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
[[Page 69260]]
Sec. 63.2535 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
For any equipment, emission stream, or wastewater stream not
subject to Sec. Sec. 63.2445(g), 63.2450(e)(5) or 63.2493 but subject
to other provisions of both this subpart and another rule, you may
elect to comply only with the provisions as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (l) of this section. You also must identify the subject
equipment, emission stream, or wastewater stream, and the provisions
with which you will comply, in your notification of compliance status
report required by Sec. 63.2520(d).
* * * * *
(d) Compliance with subpart I, GGG, or MMM of this part 63. After
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2445, if you have an
affected source with equipment subject to subpart I, GGG, or MMM of
this part 63, you may elect to comply with the provisions of subpart H,
GGG, or MMM of this part 63, respectively, for all such equipment,
except the affirmative defense requirements in subparts GGG and MMM no
longer apply.
* * * * *
(m) Overlap of subpart FFFF with other regulations for flares.
Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), flares that control ethylene oxide emissions or are used to
control emissions from processes that produce olefins and polyolefins,
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11, and used as a
control device for an emission point subject to the emission limits and
work practice standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart are
required to comply only with the provisions specified in Sec.
63.2450(e)(5). At any time before the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2445(g), flares that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
60.18 or 63.11 and elect to comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.2450(e)(5) are required to comply only with the provisions specified
in this subpart.
0
23. Section 63.2545 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2545 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)
of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are
not delegated to the State, local, or tribal agency.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
24. In Sec. 63.2550 amend paragraph (i) by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (4) in the definition of ``Batch process vent'';
0
b. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Bench-scale
process'' and ``Breakthrough'';
0
c. Adding paragraphs (8) and (9) in the definition of ``Continuous
process vent'';
0
d. Revising paragraph (3) in the definition of ``Deviation'';
0
e. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Force majeure'',
``Heat exchange system'', ``In ethylene oxide service'', ``Leakless
pump'', ``Leakless valve'', ``Loading rack'';
0
f. Revising paragraph (6) in the definition of ``Miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing process''; and
0
g. Adding definitions, in alphabetical order, for ``Pressure release'',
``Pressure relief device'', ``Pressure vessel'', and ``Relief valve''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
(i) * * *
Batch process vent * * *
(4) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system(s) unless on and
after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the fuel gas system(s) supplies a flare of which 50
percent or more of the fuel gas burned in the flare is derived from an
MCPU that has processes and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service, or
produces olefins or polyolefins;
* * * * *
Bench-scale process means a process (other than a research and
development facility) that is operated on a small scale, such as one
capable of being located on a laboratory bench top. This bench-scale
equipment will typically include reagent feed vessels, a small reactor
and associated product separator, recovery and holding equipment. These
processes are only capable of producing small quantities of product.
* * * * *
Breakthrough means the time when the level of HAP or TOC detected
is at the highest concentration allowed to be discharged from an
adsorber system.
* * * * *
Continuous process vent * * *
(8) On and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], Sec. 63.107(h)(3) applies unless the
fuel gas system supplies a flare of which 50 percent or more of the
fuel gas burned in the flare is derived from an MCPU that has processes
and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service, or produces olefins or
polyolefins.
(9) On and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], Sec. 63.107(i) no longer applies.
Instead, a process vent is the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or
the point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream if
the gas stream meets the criteria specified in this paragraph. The gas
stream would meet the characteristics specified in Sec. 63.107(b)
through (g) of this section, but, for purposes of avoiding
applicability, has been deliberately interrupted, temporarily
liquefied, routed through any item of equipment for no process purpose,
or disposed of in a flare that does not meet the criteria in Sec.
63.11(b) or Sec. 63.2450(e)(5) as applicable, or an incinerator that
does not reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 percent or to a
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less
stringent.
* * * * *
Deviation * * *
(3) Before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart. On and after [date 3 years after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no
longer applies.
* * * * *
Force majeure event means a release of HAP, either directly to the
atmosphere from a pressure relief device or discharged via a flare,
that is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator to result
from an event beyond the owner or operator's control, such as natural
disasters; acts of war or terrorism; loss of a utility external to the
MCPU (e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power curtailment
due to an interruptible service agreement; and fire or explosion
originating at a near or adjoining facility outside of the
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit that impacts
the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit's ability
to operate.
* * * * *
Heat exchange system means a device or collection of devices used
to transfer
[[Page 69261]]
heat from process fluids to water without intentional direct contact of
the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger) and
to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop recirculation
system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system (e.g., river or
pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the heat exchange
system consists of a cooling tower, all miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process unit heat exchangers that are in organic HAP
service, as defined in this subpart, serviced by that cooling tower,
and all water lines to and from these miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process unit heat exchangers. For once-through systems,
the heat exchange system consists of all heat exchangers that are in
organic HAP service, as defined in this subpart, servicing an
individual miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit
and all water lines to and from these heat exchangers. Sample coolers
or pump seal coolers are not considered heat exchangers for the purpose
of this definition and are not part of the heat exchange system.
Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation
of a wastewater.
* * * * *
In ethylene oxide service means the following:
(1) For equipment leaks, any equipment that contains or contacts a
fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 0.1 percent by weight of
ethylene oxide. If information exists that suggests ethylene oxide
could be present in equipment, the equipment is considered to be ``in
ethylene oxide service'' unless sampling and analysis is performed as
specified in Sec. 63.2492 to demonstrate that the equipment does not
meet the definition of being ``in ethylene oxide service''. Examples of
information that could suggest ethylene oxide could be present in
equipment, include calculations based on safety data sheets, material
balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test results provided the
results are still relevant to the current operating conditions.
(2) For process vents, each batch and continuous process vent in a
process that, when uncontrolled, contains a concentration of greater
than or equal to 1 ppmv undiluted ethylene oxide anywhere in the
process, and when combined, the sum of all these process vents would
emit uncontrolled, undiluted ethylene oxide emissions greater than or
equal to 5 lb/yr (2.27 kg/yr). If information exists that suggests
ethylene oxide could be present in a batch or continuous process vent,
then the batch or continuous process vent is considered to be ``in
ethylene oxide service'' unless an analysis is performed as specified
in Sec. 63.2492 to demonstrate that the batch or continuous process
vent does not meet the definition of being ``in ethylene oxide
service''. Examples of information that could suggest ethylene oxide
could be present in a batch or continuous process vent, include
calculations based on safety data sheets, material balances, process
stoichiometry, or previous test results provided the results are still
relevant to the current operating conditions.
(3) For storage tanks, storage tanks of any capacity and vapor
pressure storing a liquid with a concentration of ethylene oxide
greater than or equal to 1 ppmw. If knowledge exists that suggests
ethylene oxide could be present in a storage tank, then the storage
tank is considered to be ``in ethylene oxide service'' unless sampling
and analysis is performed as specified in Sec. 63.2492 to demonstrate
that the storage tank does not meet the definition of being ``in
ethylene oxide service''. The exemptions for ``vessels storing organic
liquids that contain HAP only as impurities'' and ``pressure vessels
designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without
emissions to the atmosphere'' listed in the definition of ``storage
tank'' in this section do not apply for storage tanks that may be in
ethylene oxide service. Examples of information that could suggest
ethylene oxide could be present in a storage tank, include calculations
based on safety data sheets, material balances, process stoichiometry,
or previous test results provided the results are still relevant to the
current operating conditions.
* * * * *
Leakless pump means a pump that has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing, and as such, is designed to operate with
no instrument readings above the background concentration level, as
demonstrated using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. Examples
of leakless pumps include diaphragm pumps, magnetically-driven pumps,
and canned motor pumps. A pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal
system that includes a barrier fluid system with a higher pressure than
the process is also considered a leakless pump.
Leakless valve means a valve that has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process fluid, and as such, is designed
to operate with no instrument readings above the background
concentration level, as demonstrated using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7. Examples of leakless valves include bellows valves which
are gate or globe valves that use a cylindrical metal bellows to
hermetically seal the valve against stem leakage.
Loading rack means a single system used to fill tank trucks and
railcars at a single geographic site. Loading equipment and operations
that are physically separate (i.e., do not share common piping, valves,
and other equipment) are considered to be separate loading racks.
* * * * *
Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process * * *
(6) The end of a process that produces a solid material is either
up to and including the dryer or extruder, or for a polymer production
process without a dryer or extruder, it is up to and including the die
plate or solid-state reactor, except in two cases. If the dryer,
extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor is followed by an operation
that is designed and operated to remove HAP solvent or residual HAP
monomer from the solid, then the solvent removal operation is the last
step in the process. If the dried solid is diluted or mixed with a HAP-
based solvent, then the solvent removal operation is the last step in
the process.
* * * * *
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period.
Pressure relief device means a valve, rupture disk, or similar
device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas
from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment
damage. A pressure relief device discharge can result from an operator
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected cause. Such devices include conventional, spring-
actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated
relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin
devices.
Pressure vessel means a storage vessel that is used to store
liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a
result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel
during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity.
* * * * *
[[Page 69262]]
Relief valve means a type of pressure relief device that is
designed to re-close after the pressure relief.
* * * * *
0
25. Table 1 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Continuous Process Vents
[As required in Sec. 63.2455, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
continuous process vents]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . For which . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 continuous a. Not applicable... i. Reduce emissions
process vent. of total organic
HAP by >=98 percent
by weight or to an
outlet process
concentration <=20
ppmv as organic HAP
or TOC by venting
emissions through a
closed-vent system
to any combination
of control devices
(except a flare);
or
ii. Reduce emissions
of total organic
HAP by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system
to a flare; or
iii. Use a recovery
device to maintain
the TRE above 1.9
for an existing
source or above 5.0
for a new source.
2. Halogenated Group 1 a. You use a i. Use a halogen
continuous process vent combustion control reduction device
stream. device to control after the
organic HAP combustion device
emissions. to reduce emissions
of hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP by
>=99 percent by
weight, or to
<=0.45 kg/hr, or to
<=20 ppmv; or
ii. Use a halogen
reduction device
before the
combustion device
to reduce the
halogen atom mass
emission rate to
<=0.45 kg/hr or to
a concentration
<=20 ppmv.
3. Group 2 continuous You use a recovery Comply with the
process vent at an existing device to maintain requirements in
source. the TRE level >1.9 Sec.
but <=5.0. 63.2450(e)(4) and
the requirements in
Sec. 63.993 and
the requirements
referenced therein.
4. Group 2 continuous You use a recovery Comply with the
process vent at a new device to maintain requirements in
source. the TRE level >5.0 Sec.
but <=8.0. 63.2450(e)(4) and
the requirements in
Sec. 63.993 and
the requirements
referenced therein.
5. Continuous process vent.. Beginning no later Comply with the
than the compliance applicable emission
dates specified in limits specified in
Sec. 63.2445(i), items 1 through 4
the continuous of this Table, and
process vent also:
contains ethylene i. Reduce emissions
oxide such that it of ethylene oxide
is considered to be by venting
in ethylene oxide emissions through a
service as defined closed-vent system
in Sec. 63.2550. to a flare; or
ii. Reduce
emissions of
ethylene oxide
by venting
emissions
through a closed-
vent system to a
control device
that reduces
ethylene oxide
by >=99.9
percent by
weight, or to a
concentration <1
ppmv for each
process vent or
to <5 pounds per
year for all
combined process
vents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Table 2 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by adding a new entry
3 to read as follows:
[[Page 69263]]
Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards for Batch Process Vents
[As required in Sec. 63.2460, you must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in the following
table that applies to your batch process vents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . Then you must . . . And you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with Group 1 batch process a. Reduce collective uncontrolled organic Not applicable.
vents. HAP emissions from the sum of all batch
process vents within the process by >=98
percent by weight by venting emissions
from a sufficient number of the vents
through one or more closed-vent systems
to any combination of control devices
(except a flare); or
b. Reduce collective uncontrolled organic Not applicable.
HAP emissions from the sum of all batch
process vents within the process by >=95
percent by weight by venting emissions
from a sufficient number of the vents
through one or more closed-vent systems
to any combination of recovery devices or
a biofilter, except you may elect to
comply with the requirements of subpart
WW of this part for any process tank; or
c. Reduce uncontrolled organic HAP For all other batch process
emissions from one or more batch process vents within the process,
vents within the process by venting reduce collective organic
through a closed-vent system to a flare HAP emissions as specified
or by venting through one or more closed- in item 1.a and/or item 1.b
vent systems to any combination of of this table.
control devices (excluding a flare) that
reduce organic HAP to an outlet
concentration <=20 ppmv as TOC or total
organic HAP.
2. Halogenated Group 1 batch process a. Use a halogen reduction device after i. Reduce overall emissions
vent for which you use a combustion the combustion control device; or of hydrogen halide and
device to control organic HAP halogen HAP by >=99 percent;
emissions. or
ii. Reduce overall emissions
of hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP to <=0.45 kg/hr;
or
iii. Reduce overall emissions
of hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP to a
concentration <=20 ppmv.
b. Use a halogen reduction device before Reduce the halogen atom mass
the combustion control device. emission rate to <=0.45 kg/
hr or to a concentration
<=20 ppmv.
3. Batch process vent that contains Beginning no later than the compliance Not applicable.
ethylene oxide such that it is dates specified in Sec. 63.2445(i),
considered to be in ethylene oxide comply with the applicable emission
service as defined in Sec. 63.2550. limits specified in items 1 and 2 of this
Table, and also:
i. Reduce emissions of ethylene oxide
by venting emissions through a closed-
vent system to a flare; or
ii. Reduce emissions of ethylene oxide
by venting emissions through a closed-
vent system to a control device that
reduces ethylene oxide by >=99.9
percent by weight, or to a
concentration <1 ppmv for each process
vent or to <5 pounds per year for all
combined process vents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
27. Table 4 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 69264]]
Table 4 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
[As required in Sec. 63.2470, you must meet each emission limit in the
following table that applies to your storage tanks]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . For which . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 storage tank..... a. The maximum true i. Reduce total HAP
vapor pressure of emissions by >=95
total HAP at the percent by weight
storage temperature or to <=20 ppmv of
is >=76.6 TOC or organic HAP
kilopascals. and <=20 ppmv of
hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
(excluding a
flare); or
ii. Reduce total
organic HAP
emissions by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to a
flare; or
iii. Comply with the
requirements in
Sec.
63.2450(e)(4), as
applicable; and
reduce total HAP
emissions by
venting emissions
to a fuel gas
system or process
in accordance with
Sec. 63.982(d)
and the
requirements
referenced
therein.\a\
b. The maximum true i. Comply with the
vapor pressure of requirements of
total HAP at the subpart WW of this
storage temperature part, except as
is <76.6 specified in Sec.
kilopascals. 63.2470; or
ii. Reduce total HAP
emissions by >=95
percent by weight
or to <=20 ppmv of
TOC or organic HAP
and <=20 ppmv of
hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
(excluding a
flare); or
iii. Reduce total
organic HAP
emissions by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to a
flare; or
iv. Comply with the
requirements in
Sec.
63.2450(e)(4), as
applicable; and
reduce total HAP
emissions by
venting emissions
to a fuel gas
system or process
in accordance with
Sec. 63.982(d)
and the
requirements
referenced
therein.\a\
2. Halogenated vent stream You use a combustion Meet one of the
from a Group 1 storage tank. control device to emission limit
control organic HAP options specified
emissions. in Item 2.a.i or
ii. in Table 1 to
this subpart.
3. Storage tank of any Beginning no later Comply with the
capacity and vapor pressure. than the compliance applicable emission
dates specified in limits specified in
Sec. 63.2445(i), items 1 and 2 of
the stored liquid this Table, and
contains ethylene also:
oxide such that the i. Reduce emissions
storage tank is of ethylene oxide
considered to be in by venting
ethylene oxide emissions through a
service as defined closed-vent system
in Sec. 63.2550. to a flare; or
ii. Reduce
emissions of
ethylene oxide
by venting
emissions
through a closed-
vent system to a
control device
that reduces
ethylene oxide
by >=99.9
percent by
weight, or to a
concentration <1
ppmv for each
storage tank
vent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), any flare using fuel gas from a fuel gas system, of which
50 percent or more of the fuel gas is derived from an MCPU that has
processes and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service or that produces
olefins or polyolefins, must be in compliance with Sec.
63.2450(e)(5).
0
28. Table 5 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Transfer Racks
[As required in Sec. 63.2475, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
transfer racks]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer rack............... a. Reduce emissions of total
organic HAP by >=98 percent by
weight or to an outlet
concentration <=20 ppmv as
organic HAP or TOC by venting
emissions through a closed-
vent system to any combination
of control devices (except a
flare); or
b. Reduce emissions of total
organic HAP by venting
emissions through a closed-
vent system to a flare; or
[[Page 69265]]
c. Comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.2450(e)(4), as
applicable; and reduce
emissions of total organic HAP
by venting emissions to a fuel
gas system or process in
accordance with Sec.
63.982(d) and the requirements
referenced therein; \a\ or
d. Use a vapor balancing system
designed and operated to
collect organic HAP vapors
displaced from tank trucks and
railcars during loading and
route the collected HAP vapors
to the storage tank from which
the liquid being loaded
originated or to another
storage tank connected by a
common header.
2. Halogenated Group 1 transfer rack a. Use a halogen reduction
vent stream for which you use a device after the combustion
combustion device to control organic device to reduce emissions of
HAP emissions. hydrogen halide and halogen
HAP by >=99 percent by weight,
to <=0.45 kg/hr, or to <=20
ppmv; or
b. Use a halogen reduction
device before the combustion
device to reduce the halogen
atom mass emission rate to
<=0.45 kg/hr or to a
concentration <=20 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2445(g), any flare using fuel gas from a fuel gas system, of which
50 percent or more of the fuel gas is derived from an MCPU that has
processes and/or equipment in ethylene oxide service or that produces
olefins or polyolefins, must be in compliance with Sec.
63.2450(e)(5).
0
29. Table 6 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
[As required in Sec. 63.2480, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your equipment leaks]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is part of
For all . . . . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in a. Any MCPU......... i. Comply with the
organic HAP service. requirements of
subpart UU of this
part 63 and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2480(b), and (d)
through (f); or
ii. Comply with the
requirements of
subpart H of this
part 63 and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2480(b), and (d)
through (f); or
iii. Comply with the
requirements of 40
CFR part 65,
subpart F and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2480(c), and (d)
through (f).
2. Equipment that is in a. Any MCPU......... i. Comply with the
organic HAP service at a requirements of
new source. subpart UU of this
part 63 and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2480(b)(6),
(b)(7), (e), and
(f); or
ii. Comply with the
requirements of 40
CFR part 65,
subpart F, except
as specified in
Sec.
63.2480(c)(10),
(c)(11), (e), and
(f).
3. Equipment that is in a. Any MCPU......... i. Beginning no
ethylene oxide service as later than the
defined in Sec. 63.2550. compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2445(i), comply
with the
requirements of
subpart UU of this
part 63 and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2493(d) and (e);
or
ii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2445(i), comply
with the
requirements of
subpart H of this
part 63 and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2493(d) and (e);
iii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2445(i), comply
with the
requirements of 40
CFR part 65,
subpart F and the
requirements
referenced therein,
except as specified
in Sec.
63.2493(d) and (e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69266]]
0
30. Table 10 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Work Practice Standards for Heat
Exchange Systems
[As required in Sec. 63.2490, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your heat exchange systems]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange system, as defined in a. Comply with the requirements
Sec. 63.101. of Sec. 63.104 and the
requirements referenced
therein, except as specified
in Sec. 63.2490(b) and (c);
or
b. Comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.2490(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
31. Table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart FFFF
[As specified in Sec. 63.2540, the parts of the General Provisions
that apply to you are shown in the following table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................... Applicability.... Yes.
Sec. 63.2................... Definitions...... Yes.
Sec. 63.3................... Units and Yes.
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4................... Prohibited Yes.
Activities.
Sec. 63.5................... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)................ Applicability.... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)......... Compliance Dates Yes.
for New and
Reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)............. Notification..... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b) (6)............ [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)............. Compliance Dates Yes.
for New and
Reconstructed
Area Sources
That Become
Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)......... Compliance Dates Yes.
for Existing
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)......... [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)............. Compliance Dates Yes.
for Existing
Area Sources
That Become
Major.
Sec. 63.6(d)................ [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).......... Operation & Yes, before [date 3
Maintenance. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2450(u) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)......... Operation & Yes, before [date 3
Maintenance. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........ Operation & Yes.
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)............. [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i), (ii), Startup, Yes, before [date 3
and (v) through (viii). Shutdown, years after date of
Malfunction Plan publication of final
(SSMP). rule in the Federal
Register], except
information
regarding Group 2
emission points and
equipment leaks is
not required in the
SSMP, as specified
in Sec.
63.2525(j). No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) and Recordkeeping and No, see Sec.
(iv). Reporting During 63.2525 for
SSM. recordkeeping
requirements and
Sec. 63.2520(e)(4)
for reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(ix)......... SSMP Yes, before [date 3
incorporation years after date of
into title V publication of final
permit. rule in the Federal
Register]. No
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)............. Compliance Except Yes, before [date 3
During SSM. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)......... Methods for Yes.
Determining
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)......... Alternative Yes.
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)............. Compliance with Yes, before [date 3
Opacity/VE years after date of
Standards. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(9)......... Opacity/Visible Only for flares for
Emission (VE) which Method 22
Standards. observations are
required as part of
a flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)........ Compliance Yes.
Extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)................ Presidential Yes.
Compliance
Exemption.
[[Page 69267]]
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)......... Performance Test Yes, except
Dates. substitute 150 days
for 180 days.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)............. Section 114 Yes, and this
Authority. paragraph also
applies to flare
compliance
assessments as
specified under Sec.
63.997(b)(2).
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)............. Notification of Yes.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)............. Notification of Yes.
Rescheduling.
Sec. 63.7(c)................ Quality Assurance/ Yes, except the test
Test Plan. plan must be
submitted with the
notification of the
performance test if
the control device
controls batch
process vents.
Sec. 63.7(d)................ Testing Yes.
Facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. Conditions for Yes, before [date 3
Conducting years after date of
Performance publication of final
Tests. rule in the Federal
Register] except
that performance
tests for batch
process vents must
be conducted under
worst-case
conditions as
specified in Sec.
63.2460. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2450(g)(6).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)............. Conditions for Yes.
Conducting
Performance
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)............. Test Run Duration Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4)............. Administrator's Yes.
Authority to
Require Testing.
Sec. 63.7(f)................ Alternative Test Yes.
Method.
Sec. 63.7(g)................ Performance Test Yes, except this
Data Analysis. subpart specifies
how and when the
performance test and
performance
evaluation results
are reported.
Sec. 63.7(h)................ Waiver of Tests.. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)............. Applicability of Yes.
Monitoring
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)............. Performance Yes.
Specifications.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)............. [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)............. Monitoring with Yes, except for
Flares. flares subject to
Sec.
63.2450(e)(5).
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)............. Monitoring....... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)......... Multiple Yes.
Effluents and
Multiple
Monitoring
Systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)............. Monitoring System Yes.
Operation and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).......... Routine and Yes, before [date 3
Predictable SSM. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)......... SSM not in SSMP.. Yes, before [date 3
years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........ Compliance with Yes, before [date 3
Operation and years after date of
Maintenance publication of final
Requirements. rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)......... Monitoring System Yes.
Installation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)............. CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS.
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
part 63.
Requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
continuous opacity
monitoring systems
(COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i).......... COMS Measurement No; subpart FFFF does
and Recording not require COMS.
Frequency.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii)......... CEMS Measurement Yes.
and Recording
Frequency.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)............. COMS Minimum No. Subpart FFFF does
Procedures. not contain opacity
or VE limits.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)............. CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS;
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
Requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)......... CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS.
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
part 63.
Requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)............. CMS Quality Only for CEMS.
Control.
Sec. 63.8(d)(2)............. CMS Quality Only for CEMS.
Control.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)............. CMS Quality Yes, only for CEMS
Control. before [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2450(j)(6).
Sec. 63.8(e)................ CMS Performance Only for CEMS, except
Evaluation. this subpart
specifies how and
when the performance
evaluation results
are reported.
Section
63.8(e)(5)(ii) does
not apply because
subpart FFFF does
not require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)......... Alternative Yes, except you may
Monitoring also request
Method. approval using the
precompliance
report.
[[Page 69268]]
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)............. Alternative to Only applicable when
Relative using CEMS to
Accuracy Test. demonstrate
compliance,
including the
alternative standard
in Sec. 63.2505.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)......... Data Reduction... Only when using CEMS,
including for the
alternative standard
in Sec. 63.2505,
except that the
requirements for
COMS do not apply
because subpart FFFF
has no opacity or VE
limits, and Sec.
63.8(g)(2) does not
apply because data
reduction
requirements for
CEMS are specified
in Sec.
63.2450(j).
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)............. Data Reduction... No. Requirements for
CEMS are specified
in Sec.
63.2450(j).
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
Sec. 63.9(a)................ Notification Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)......... Initial Yes.
Notifications.
Sec. 63.9(c)................ Request for Yes.
Compliance
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)................ Notification of Yes.
Special
Compliance
Requirements for
New Source.
Sec. 63.9(e)................ Notification of Yes.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f)................ Notification of No.
VE/Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g)................ Additional Only for CEMS.
Notifications Section 63.9(g)(2)
When Using CMS. does not apply
because subpart FFFF
does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)......... Notification of Yes, except
Compliance 63.9(h)(2)(i)(A)
Status. through (G) and (ii)
do not apply because
63.2520(d) specifies
the required
contents and due
date of the
notification of
compliance status
report.
Sec. 63.9(i)................ Adjustment of Yes.
Submittal
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Change in No, Sec. 63.2520(e)
Previous specifies reporting
Information. requirements for
process changes.
Sec. 63.10(a)............... Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............ Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)......... Records related No, see Sec. Sec.
to SS. 63.2450(e) and
63.2525 for
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........ Recordkeeping Yes, before [date 3
relevant to SSM years after date of
periods and CMS. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
Sec. 63.2525(h)
and 63.2525(l).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)....... Records related Yes.
to maintenance
of air pollution
control
equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)........ Recordkeeping Yes, before [date 3
relevant to SSM years after date of
periods and CMS. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v)......... Recordkeeping Yes, before [date 3
relevant to SSM years after date of
periods and CMS. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), CMS Records...... Only for CEMS;
and (xi). requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (vii)-(ix). Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)....... Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...... Records.......... Only for CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)....... Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............ Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)- Records.......... Only for CEMS.
(14). Recordkeeping
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subparts G and SS of
this part 63.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........ Records.......... No. Recordkeeping
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.2525.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)........... Records.......... Yes, before [date 3
years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register], but only
for CEMS. No,
beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............ General Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............ Report of Yes, before [date 60
Performance Test days after date of
Results. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No,
beginning on and
after [date 60 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............ Reporting Opacity No.
or VE
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............ Progress Reports. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)......... Periodic Startup, No, Sec.
Shutdown, and 63.2520(e)(4) and
Malfunction (5) specify the SSM
Reports. reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)........ Immediate SSM No.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)............ Additional CEMS Yes.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(i)......... Additional CMS Only for CEMS, except
Reports. this subpart
specifies how and
when the performance
evaluation results
are reported.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)........ Additional COMS No. Subpart FFFF does
Reports. not require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............ Reports.......... No. Reporting
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)... Reports.......... No. Reporting
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).... Excess Emissions No. Reporting
Reports. requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.2520.
[[Page 69269]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).... Excess Emissions No. Reporting
Reports. requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii). Excess Emissions No. Reporting
Report and requirements are
Summary Report. specified in Sec.
63.2520.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............ Reporting COMS No.
data.
Sec. 63.10(f)............... Waiver for Yes.
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11.................. Control device Yes, except for
requirements for flares subject to
flares and work Sec.
practice 63.2450(e)(5).
requirements for
equipment leaks.
Sec. 63.12.................. Delegation....... Yes.
Sec. 63.13.................. Addresses........ Yes.
Sec. 63.14.................. Incorporation by Yes.
Reference.
Sec. 63.15.................. Availability of Yes.
Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-24573 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P