[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66096-66129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24204]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505, EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532; FRL-7523-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU66
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Carbon
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk and
Technology Reviews, and Carbon Black Production Area Source Technology
Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews
(RTR) conducted for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing major source categories, and the technology review
conducted for Carbon Black Production area sources, regulated under
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). In
addition, we are taking final action to add new emissions standards for
the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing major
source categories to address hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions
not previously covered by these NESHAP. The EPA is also finalizing
amendments for both source categories that address the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the existing standards,
and require electronic reporting of certain notifications, performance
test results, and semiannual reports.
DATES: These final rules are effective on November 19, 2021. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for the Carbon Black Production source category
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505, and a docket for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0532. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. Hand
Deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only.
For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services and
the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the Carbon Black
Production source category final action, contact Korbin Smith, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2416;
fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected].
For questions about the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category
final action, contact Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0483; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected].
For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology
for both Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing,
contact James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CCD combustion control device
CCMPU cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CRA Congressional Review Act
EAV equivalent annual value
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GMACT Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
ICBA International Carbon Black Association
ICR Information Collection Request
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MUF main unit filter
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PEL permissible exposure limit
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SSP startup and shutdown plan
STEL short term exposure limit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
Background information. On January 14, 2021, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP based on our RTR, and
proposed no revisions to the Carbon Black Production area source rule
based on our technology review. On January 15, 2021, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP based on our
RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions for, and revisions of,
the NESHAP for these source categories. We summarize some of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rules
and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on these proposals and the EPA's responses to those
comments are available in the Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses
on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
[[Page 66097]]
Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review
and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology Review Proposed
Rule (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505) for the Carbon Black
Production source category, and Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses
on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532) for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category. ``Track changes'' versions of
the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action
are available in the dockets.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
C. What changes did we propose for the Carbon Black Production
source category in our January 14, 2021, RTR proposal?
D. What changes did we propose for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category in our January 15, 2021, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews
for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
source categories?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
reviews for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source categories?
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source categories?
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source categories?
E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Carbon Black Production source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Carbon Black Production Source
Category
B. Technology Review for the Carbon Black Production Source
Category
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to 112(d)(2) and
(3) for the Carbon Black Production source category?
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the
Carbon Black Production Source Category
E. Other Technical Amendments to the Carbon Black Production
NESHAP
V. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Source Category
C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category
D. Other Technical Amendments to the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing NESHAP
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. Carbon Black Production
B. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. The source categories that are the subject of
this final action are cyanide chemicals manufacturing and carbon black
production major sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY and
carbon black production area sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMMMM. The North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing industry are
325188 and 325199. The NAICS code for the carbon black production
industry is 325182.
This list of categories and NAICS codes is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source
categories listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you
should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of
these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the dockets for these source
categories, an electronic copy of this final action will also be
available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA
Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbon-black-hydrogen. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the
final rule and key technical documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by January 18, 2022. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the
[[Page 66098]]
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a
demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both
the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is required to
address regulatory gaps, such as missing standards for listed air
toxics known to be emitted from the source category. Louisiana
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir.
2020). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to
public health remaining after application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review,
if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more
information on the statutory authority for this action, see 86 FR 3054,
for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP and 86 FR 3906, for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
The MACT standards for both the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source categories are contained in the Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (GMACT) NESHAP, which also
includes MACT standards for several other source categories. Section
II.B.1 of this preamble discusses the current Carbon Black Production
major and area source rules and section II.B.2 discusses the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category standards.
1. Carbon Black Production
The EPA promulgated the Carbon Black Production NESHAP for major
sources on July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46258). The major source standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. Additionally, the Carbon Black
Production area source NESHAP was promulgated on July 16, 2007 (72 FR
38864). The area source standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMMMM. Subpart MMMMMM was subsequently amended by a direct
final rule on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 15923). As promulgated, the Carbon
Black Production major source and area source NESHAP apply to carbon
black production facilities that are, respectively, major sources and
area sources of HAP. The affected source covered by the major and area
source subparts is each new, reconstructed, or existing facility that
produces carbon black by either the furnace, thermal, acetylene
decomposition, or lampblack processes. The source category covered by
this MACT standard currently includes 15 major source facilities; no
area source facilities were identified.
Emissions limits in the 2002 major source NESHAP for the Carbon
Black Production source category were set for process vents associated
with the main unit filter (MUF). Process vents at the MUF that have a
HAP concentration of equal to or greater than 260 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) are required to reduce emissions of HAP by the use of a
flare meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, or reduce
emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-
[[Page 66099]]
percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent.
The Carbon Black Production area source NESHAP requires area source
facilities to meet the requirements of the Carbon Black Production
major source NESHAP found at 40 CFR 63.1103(f) of subpart YY.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
The EPA promulgated the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP on
July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46258). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart YY. The cyanide chemicals manufacturing industry consists
of facilities producing hydrogen cyanide or sodium cyanide. The source
category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 13
facilities. As promulgated in 2002, the cyanide chemicals manufacturing
standards regulate HAP emissions from cyanide chemicals manufacturing
units located at major sources. The HAP emitted from the source
category include cyanide compounds (hydrogen cyanide and sodium
cyanide), acetonitrile, and acrylonitrile.
The NESHAP defines the affected source as each cyanide chemicals
manufacturing process unit (CCMPU). The rule states that the CCMPU is
the equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to
process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide
chemicals product. Section II.B of the proposed cyanide chemicals
manufacturing RTR provides more information about the source category
(86 FR 3906, 3910).
The 2002 NESHAP established emissions standards for process vents,
storage vessels, transfer racks, equipment leaks, and some wastewater
sources. Cyanide process vents are subject to either a 98 weight-
percent reduction of total HAP \2\ performance standard or a 20 ppmv
total HAP outlet exit concentration limit. For storage vessels in the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category, sources may either
choose to comply with a 98 weight-percent reduction of hydrogen cyanide
performance standard, a 20 ppmv hydrogen cyanide exit outlet
concentration limit, or equipment standards (e.g., use of a flare).
Transfer racks are subject to either equipment standards or the same
performance standard or concentration limit \3\ as cyanide process
vents. Equipment leaks are subject to work practice standards required
by either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or subpart UU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Dry end'' process vents at sodium cyanide units must meet
a 98 percent reduction performance standard for emissions of sodium
cyanide since this is the form of cyanide compounds emitted from
these emission points. The HAP emitted from other process vents that
make up the ``total HAP'' emitted from these sources are hydrogen
cyanide, acetonitrile, and acrylonitrile.
\3\ Transfer racks emissions limits are expressed in terms of
hydrogen cyanide as this is the only HAP emitted from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During development of the initial MACT standards, we identified
process wastewater at existing sources as a potential source of
emissions of hydrogen cyanide, acetonitrile, and acrylonitrile. See 65
FR 76408, 76411, and 76413, December 6, 2000, for a discussion of the
HAP emitted from cyanide chemicals manufacturing. The 2002 NESHAP
established requirements that HAP emissions from applicable process
wastewater streams be controlled while the wastewater is being conveyed
to treatment and specified requirements for the controls to reduce the
hydrogen cyanide and acetonitrile concentration in the process
wastewater. For a new CCMPU that generates process wastewater, the
NESHAP requires a combined 93 weight-percent removal and control of HAP
from process wastewater generated from hydrogen cyanide purification,
ammonia purification, or flare blowdown. At the time the initial MACT
standards were developed, we identified measures undertaken at cyanide
chemicals manufacturing facilities to comply with other NESHAP as the
``MACT floor'' for process wastewater at existing sources, but we did
not include these measures in subpart YY for existing CCMPUs. For a
cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit that generates maintenance
wastewater, the NESHAP requires that an owner or operator comply with
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) maintenance wastewater requirements.
C. What changes did we propose for the Carbon Black Production source
category in our January 14, 2021, RTR proposal?
On January 14, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part
63, subpart YY, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the
proposed rule, we proposed to find that the risk from the source
category is acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Based on the
technology review, we proposed that it is not necessary to revise the
existing standards because we did not identify developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in
cost-effective emission reductions for the Carbon Black Production
source category.
The EPA did, however, propose to broaden the scope of the original
NESHAP, which applied to process vents associated with the MUF only, to
include previously unregulated process vents associated with the carbon
black production unit. The EPA proposed to require all process vents
that have a HAP concentration of the emission stream equal to or
greater than 260 ppmv, including those located after the MUF, to reduce
emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS, or to reduce emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-
percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent.
The EPA also proposed to require facilities to conduct performance
testing on the additional process vents located after the MUF.
The proposal preamble also stated that the EPA did not identify any
currently operating area sources in the carbon black production source
category. The EPA is not proposing to change the existing area source
standards. However, the area source standard requires all facilities to
meet all the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1103(f) of subpart YY (major
source standard). The provisions in 40 CFR 63.1103(f) include carbon
black production applicability, definitions, and requirements.
Therefore, all changes discussed below, which impact the requirements
laid out in 40 CFR 63.1103(f), also impact the requirements of the area
source rule for carbon black production.
The EPA proposed the following amendments to the Carbon Black
Production major source NESHAP:
Expansion of the process vent emission standards to cover
all applicable (based on an applicability threshold) carbon black
production process vents;
A requirement for boilers/process heaters that receive
tail gas for use as fuel gas to comply with annual tune-up requirements
specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii);
Addition of a work practice standard for periods of
startup, as specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5);
Revision of the MACT standard compliance provisions for
the Carbon Black Production source category to require owners and
operators of carbon black production process vent affected sources to
conduct periodic performance tests every 5 years;
[[Page 66100]]
Elimination of the startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM)
exemption, which currently appears at 40 CFR 63.1108, and any
references to SSM requirements in subpart YY that apply to Carbon Black
Production source category affected sources;
Requirements for submission of electronic copies of
required performance test reports, Notification of Compliance Status
(NOCS), and periodic reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI); and
Minor editorial and technical changes in the subpart.
D. What changes did we propose for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
source category in our January 15, 2021, RTR proposal?
On January 15, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP (86 FR
3906) that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed
rule, we proposed to find that the risk from the source category is
acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, and more stringent standards are not necessary
to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Based on the technology
review, we proposed that it is not necessary to revise the existing
standards because we did not identify developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies that would result in cost-effective
emission reductions for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source
category.
However, the EPA proposed standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) for process wastewater from existing CCMPUs, which was
previously unregulated.\4\ We proposed that process wastewater sources
at existing sources comply with HON wastewater requirements.
Specifically, for an existing cyanide chemicals manufacturing process
unit that generates process wastewater from hydrogen cyanide
purification, ammonia purification, or flare blowdown, we proposed that
owners or operators comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.138(a)(1)
of the HON if the total annual average concentration of Table 9 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart G compounds and cyanide compounds \5\ is greater
than or equal to 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) at any flow
rate, or the total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds
and cyanide compounds is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the
annual average flow rate is greater than or equal to 10 liters per
minute (according to the procedures in 40 CFR 63.144(a)). We also
proposed revising the new source standard to add the HON requirements
for waste management units upstream of an open or closed biological
treatment process to ensure demonstrable compliance measures are in
place for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The EPA not only has authority under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3) to set MACT standards for previously unregulated HAP
emissions at any time but is required to address any previously
unregulated HAP emissions as part of its periodic review of MACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). LEAN v. EPA, 955 F3d at 1091-
1099.
\5\ In the final rule, we have clarified that this requirement
applies to ``free cyanide'' rather than ``cyanide compounds'' in
response to public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also proposed the following amendments:
Revisions to the MACT rule at 40 CFR 63.1108 through 40
CFR 63.1112 to eliminate references to SSM requirements in subpart YY
to reduce confusion that may result from referenced subparts associated
with the GMACT that may contain SSM exemptions for other source
categories;
Requirements for submission of electronic copies of
required performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through
the EPA's CDX using CEDRI; and
Minor editorial and technical changes in the subpart.
III. What is included in these final rules?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Carbon Black Production and
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source categories.
For the Carbon Black Production source category, this action
finalizes changes to the major source NESHAP, including elimination of
the SSM exemption and any reference to SSM requirements for carbon
black production facilities, inclusion of a work practice standard for
startup and shutdown periods, inclusion of boiler and process heater
annual tune-up requirements, expansion of process vent standard
applicability, addition of periodic process vent performance testing
requirements, inclusion of electronic reporting requirements, and
editorial and technical changes. This final action also reflects
several changes to the RTR proposal in consideration of comments
received during the public comment period. Section IV presents our
rationale for our final decisions and changes to the proposed
amendments based on comments received on the proposal.
For the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category, this
action finalizes changes to the NESHAP, including: Eliminating any
reference to SSM exemptions for cyanide chemicals manufacturing
facilities, adding electronic reporting requirements, adding HON
requirements for process wastewater from existing cyanide chemical
manufacturing process units, adding HON requirements for waste
management units upstream of an open or closed biological treatment
process to the new source standard, and making editorial/technical
changes. This action also reflects several changes to the RTR proposal
in consideration of comments received during the public comment period
as described in section V of this preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for the
Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source
categories?
This section introduces the final determinations for the Carbon
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). Section III.A.1 presents the final decisions based
on the risk review for the Carbon Black Production source category.
Section III.A.2 presents the final decisions based on the risk review
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
The EPA is not amending the major source Carbon Black Production
NESHAP based on the risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section
112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination
that the risk from HAP emissions from the Carbon Black Production
source category is acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
The EPA is not amending the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP
based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that the risk
from HAP emissions from the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source
category is acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect.
[[Page 66101]]
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews
for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
source categories?
This section summarizes the results of the technology reviews for
the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP.
Section III.B.1 presents the final decisions based on the technology
review for the Carbon Black Production source category. Section III.B.2
presents the final decisions based on the technology review for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards for this source category under CAA
section 112(d)(6). However, as part of the technology review, we
identified regulatory gaps (previously unregulated processes or
pollutants), and are establishing new standards to fill those gaps as
described in section III.C of this preamble.
As discussed in the Carbon Black Production source category
proposal preamble, we also performed a technology review of the Carbon
Black Production area source NESHAP. As part of that review, the EPA
did not identify any currently operating area source facilities. We are
finalizing our conclusion that it is not necessary to make changes to
the existing area source standards as a result of this review.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards for this source category under CAA
section 112(d)(6). However, as part of the technology review, we
identified regulatory gaps (previously unregulated processes or
pollutants), and are establishing new standards to fill those gaps as
described in section III.C of this preamble.
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source categories?
This section describes the final rule amendments to the Carbon
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Section III.C.1 presents the final rule
amendments for the Carbon Black Production source category. Section
III.C.2 presents the final rule amendments for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is finalizing
its proposal to broaden the scope of the current emission limits for
new and existing sources in the major source NESHAP, which applies to
process vents associated with the MUF, to include all process vents
associated with the carbon black production unit. This amendment
requires all process vents, including those located after the MUF that
meet the applicability threshold, to reduce emissions of total HAP by
98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less
stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any
combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
63.982(a)(2). Additionally, these final amendments require facilities
to conduct an applicability determination test on the additional
process vents located after the MUF.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is finalizing
its proposal to add standards for process wastewater at existing CCMPUs
with minor applicability-related clarifications (see section V.D.3.d
(Request for Clarification)). The final standards require that
individual wastewater streams from CCMPU HCN purification, ammonia
purification, or flare blowdown, comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
63.138(a)(1) of the HON if the total annual average concentration of
Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G compounds and free cyanide from
each process wastewater stream is greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw
at any flow rate, or the total annual average concentration of Table 9
compounds and free cyanide from each process wastewater stream is
greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and the annual average flow rate is
greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute (according to the
procedures in 40 CFR 63.144(a)). The EPA is also finalizing its
proposal to add the HON requirements for waste management units
upstream of an open or closed biological treatment process for process
wastewater at new sources.
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source categories?
This section describes the final rule amendments to the Carbon
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP that
address emissions during periods of SSM. Section III.D.1 presents the
final rule amendments for the Carbon Black Production source category.
Section III.D.2 presents the final rule amendments for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
The EPA is finalizing the proposed SSM provision amendments for the
Carbon Black Production major source NESHAP in subpart YY in order to
ensure consistency with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As noted in the proposal for the Carbon Black
Production source category, under this decision, the Court 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 proposed and are finalizing revisions to the MACT
rule at 40 CFR 63.1108 through 40 CFR 63.1112 that remove the SSM
exemption under the Carbon Black Production NESHAP and any references
to SSM-related requirements.
The EPA is also finalizing startup and shutdown work practice
standards to address safety and combustibility concerns in the absence
of the SSM exemption. The work practice standard, as amended under the
final rule, is discussed in greater detail in section IV.C of this
preamble.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
The EPA is finalizing the proposed SSM provision amendments for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP in order to ensure consistency
with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008). The Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated in 2002
is consistent with the Court decision mentioned above. However, we
proposed and are finalizing revisions to the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1108
through 40 CFR 63.1112 to ensure that no confusion results from
referenced subparts in subpart YY that may contain SSM exemptions for
other source categories. See section V.C of this preamble for more
information regarding SSM provisions under subpart YY.
[[Page 66102]]
E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
This section describes other amendments to the final Carbon Black
Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP. Section III.E.1
presents the other final rule amendments for the Carbon Black
Production source category. Section III.E.2 presents the other final
rule amendments for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source
category.
1. Carbon Black Production
Other final amendments to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP
include boiler and process heater annual tune-up requirements,
electronic reporting requirements, and periodic performance testing
requirements for process vents to demonstrate initial and continued
compliance with the standards, as discussed below.
a. Boiler and Process Heater Annual Tune-Up Provisions
The EPA is finalizing annual tune-up requirements for boilers and
process heaters that utilize tail gas for use as fuel. These provisions
are specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of the final rule. To better
reflect boilers and process heaters used in the carbon black production
source category, the final annual boiler and process heater tune-up
requirements were revised from the proposal, based on comments received
(see section IV.D of this preamble for detail related to comments
received, as well as the EPA's revisions and rationale).
b. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is finalizing its proposal that owners and operators of
carbon black production facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through the EPA's
CDX using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum, ``Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules'',
available in the docket for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP (see
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0018).
c. Periodic Performance Testing
The EPA is finalizing rule amendments, as proposed, that require
owners and operators of carbon black production process vents subject
to the rule, in addition to the already required initial performance
test, to conduct performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate
continued compliance with the NESHAP.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
The EPA is finalizing its proposal that owners and operators of
cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through
the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data
submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in the docket for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP
action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0003). Specific comments
received on the proposed periodic report electronic data template and
the EPA's response to those comments are provided in a memorandum to
the docket, Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP docket (see EPA
HQ-OAR-2020-0532).
F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
This section describes the effective dates and compliance dates for
the final amendments to the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP. Section III.F.1 presents the effective
dates and compliance dates for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP
amendments. Section III.F.2 presents the effective dates and compliance
dates for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP amendments.
1. Carbon Black Production
a. Effective Date of the Final Rule
The revisions to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards being
promulgated in this action are effective on November 19, 2021.
b. Compliance Dates
For new sources (affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after January 14, 2021), the EPA is finalizing, as
proposed, that affected sources must comply with all of the final rule
requirements immediately upon the effective date of the rule, November
19, 2021, or upon startup, whichever is later.
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that existing Carbon Black
Production affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021 (existing sources), must
comply with the following requirements of the rule no later than
November 20, 2022: (1) Process vent emission standards applicability
testing for carbon black production process vents; (2) the requirement
to conduct performance tests no more than 60 months after the preceding
test when demonstrating compliance with process vent emission control
requirements; and (3) boiler and process heater annual tune-up
requirements.
The EPA is finalizing a requirement that previously unregulated
process vents from Carbon Black Production sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, will have
until November 19, 2024 to comply with final rule requirements for
process vents. This represents a change from the proposal. The EPA
determined that changing the proposed compliance period is necessary,
in the event that the applicability test indicates that previously
unregulated process vents are required to route emissions to an
existing control device or to a newly constructed control device. Based
on comments received, the EPA believes providing a 3-year compliance
period for newly subject process vents, instead of 1 year, is necessary
and appropriate in order to ensure sufficient time for facilities to
conduct the necessary process design planning, purchases, construction,
and changes to come into compliance and then perform the initial
performance test.
For requirements related to SSM-related amendments and electronic
reporting, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that all existing
sources must be in compliance with the: (1) SSM-related amendments
(changes proposed as a result of removing the SSM exemption from the
requirements); (2) the alternative work practice standard specified in
40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5) related to the requirement that a closed vent
system route the collected vapors to a control device when
demonstrating compliance; and (3) the addition of requirements to
submit reports electronically by May 18, 2022. Based on our assessment
for existing sources, 180 days is the most expeditious compliance
period practicable for complying with SSM-related and electronic
reporting requirements.
The EPA considers 180 days to be sufficient for owners and
operators of affected sources to comply with the
[[Page 66103]]
alternative work practice standard for startup and shutdown.\6\ Many of
the work practice standard requirements included in the final rule are
already implemented by industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 63.983(a)(1) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS requires
that each closed vent system be designed and operated to collect the
regulated material vapors from the emission point, and to route the
collected vapors to a control device, apply at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, to install necessary hardware and software,
become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic
submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting,
shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically,
180 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these
revisions.
Our experience with similar industries further shows that owners
and operators generally require a time period of 180 days 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;
and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to
reflect the revised requirements.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
a. Effective Date of the Final Rule
The revisions to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing standards
being promulgated in this action are effective on November 19, 2021.
b. Compliance Dates
New sources (affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after January 15, 2021) must comply with all of the
standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, November
19, 2021, or upon startup, whichever is later.
The compliance date for existing Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
affected sources (affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 15, 2021) to comply with the final
process wastewater standards is November 20, 2022. The EPA determined
that affected sources are already complying with similar or
substantially equivalent process wastewater requirements. The EPA is
allowing one year to comply with the final process wastewater
requirements in order to provide owners and operators the time to
evaluate process wastewater rule requirements and applicability to
their operations, perform compliance calculations, and adjust plans and
reports, as necessary.
For requirements related to SSM-related amendments (removing
references to SSM-related exemptions in other subparts) and electronic
reporting, the compliance date is May 18, 2022. Based on our assessment
for existing sources, 180 days is the most expeditious compliance
period practicable for complying with SSM-related and electronic
reporting requirements.
For SSM-related amendments, our experience with similar industries
indicates that regulated facilities generally require a time period of
180 days 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; and to update their operations to reflect
the revised requirements.
For electronic reporting changes, our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms, to
install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the
process of submitting performance test results electronically through
the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and
reliably employ electronic reporting indicates that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally
necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Carbon Black Production source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket for this source category.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Carbon Black Production Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Carbon
Black Production source category?
On January 14, 2020 (86 FR 3056), the EPA proposed that risk posed
by major sources in the Carbon Black Production source category is
acceptable, that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety
to protect public health, and that additional standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The estimated
cancer risks were below the presumptive limit of acceptability and the
noncancer risk results indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse
noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions from this source
category. The proposed decision on ample margin of safety was based on
weighing factors relevant to this particular source category, including
the risk posed by point sources and the costs and cost-effectiveness of
additional controls to reduce risk further, as well as uncertainties in
the baseline emissions estimates used in estimating risk, the costs and
effectiveness of the work practices we considered to reduce these
emissions, and the amount of risk reduction that could be achieved with
the work practices. 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 maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In the proposal,
the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from
carbon black production sources, and we considered these in determining
acceptability. A more thorough discussion of the risk assessment is
included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Carbon Black
Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2021 Final Rule document, available in the docket for this final rule
(Docket-EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505).
In the proposed rule, as presented in Table 1 below, based on
modeling actual emissions from the Carbon Black Production source
category for all 15 facilities, we estimated inhalation cancer risk to
the individual most exposed was less than 1-in-1 million. The estimated
incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures resulting from
emissions from the source category was 0.00004 excess cancer cases per
year, or one excess case every 25,000 years with no-one exposed to an
excess cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to
inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this source category. The
Agency estimated that the maximum chronic noncancer target
[[Page 66104]]
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) from inhalation exposure from this
source category was 0.06. In the screening assessment of worst-case
acute inhalation impacts, we estimated a maximum hazard quotient (HQ)
of 0.09 (due to hydrogen cyanide) based on the reference exposure level
(REL). As shown in Table 1, the chronic cancer and non-cancer risks are
the same for allowable and facility-wide emissions as they are for
actuals.
Table 1--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Carbon Black Production \1\ Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated Estimated Estimated
individual population at population at annual cancer Maximum screening
Risk assessment Number of cancer risk (1- increased risk increased risk incidence Maximum chronic noncancer acute noncancer
facilities \2\ in-1 million) of cancer >=1- of cancer >=10- (cases per TOSHI \4\ HQ \5\
\3\ in-1 million in-1 million year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...... 15 0.06 0 0 0.00004 <1 (neurological)............. 0.09 (REL)
Facility-wide........ 15 0.06 0 0 0.00004 <1 (neurological).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...... 15 0.06 0 0 0.00004 <1 (neurological).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 15 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Carbon Black Production source category is the neurological system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute
HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1-hour dose-response value, the REL for hydrogen cyanide. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the
next lowest available acute dose-response value.
We also conducted a multipathway screening assessment for the
source category, and the results of the screening assessment are
presented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Carbon Black Production Source Category in Support of the 2021 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, and section IV of the proposal preamble
(86 FR 3054), January 14, 2021) available in the docket for this
action.
A screening value is not an estimate of the cancer risk or a
noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end
estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For the Carbon Black Production
source category, the highest cancer screening value was from arsenic
emissions, with a Tier 2 cancer screening value of 9, and the highest
non-cancer screening value was from mercury emissions, with a Tier 3
non-cancer screening value of 2. We are confident that if a refined
multipathway risk assessment was conducted, the HQ for mercury would be
lower than 2. Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be
found in Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Carbon
Black Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2021 Final Rule. Arsenic emissions resulted in a Tier 2 cancer
screening value of 9, which means that we are confident that the
multipathway cancer risk is lower than 9-in-1 million. The EPA has
determined that it is not necessary to go beyond the Tier 3 assessment
for mercury (to a site-specific assessment) or beyond the Tier 2 cancer
screening assessment. As explained above, the mercury screening value
of 2 is a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be and can
be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower
than 2. Similarly, we are confident that the excess cancer risk is less
than 9-in-1 million, and evaluation under Tier 3 or a site-specific
assessment would further reduce the estimated risk. Further, risk
results from five site-specific mercury assessments the EPA has
conducted for five RTR source categories resulted in noncancer HQs that
range from 50 times to 800 times lower than the respective Tier 2
mercury screening value for those facilities (refer to the identified
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 for a copy of these reports).\7\
Based on our review of these analyses, we expect if we were to perform
a site-specific assessment for the Carbon Black Production source
category, the mercury HQ would be at least a one order of magnitude
less than the modeled Tier 3 non-cancer screening value of 2 for
mercury. Thus, the EPA is confident that the mercury HQ would be less
than 1, if further refined to incorporate enhanced site-specific
analyses such as improved model boundary identification with improved
soil/water run-off calculations and AERMOD deposition outputs used in
the TRIM.FaTE model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA Docket records: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015, Appendix 11 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, and
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-
Fired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule and EPA Docket record: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373,
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel
Foundries Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead for the Carbon Black Production source category, the EPA
compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) level for lead (0.15 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), arithmetic mean concentration over a
3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration,
0.000099 [micro]g/m\3\, is far below the NAAQS level for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts from lead.
In determining whether risk is acceptable for this source category,
the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation
[[Page 66105]]
uncertainty that includes the uncertainty in the data (See proposal at
86 FR 3054, section III.C.7, How do we consider uncertainties in risk
assessment?). The maximum cancer risk for all facilities was below 1-
in-1 million; in addition, there were no facilities with an estimated
maximum chronic noncancer HI or maximum HQ greater than or equal to 1.
The EPA weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the risk from this source category
is acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more stringent
standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect, by
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors. Based upon these considerations, we proposed and are
finalizing the determination that the 2002 Carbon Black Production
NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we also proposed and are finalizing the determination that
more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Carbon Black Production
source category?
We did not receive any information that changed our determination
concerning risk and we are finalizing our proposed conclusion on the
risk review.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received several comments regarding the proposed risk review and
our proposed determination that no revisions to the standard were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). One commenter supported the
proposed determination, while another, stated that EPA underestimated
risks. After review of these comments, we disagreed with the
commenter's assertion that risks were underestimated and determined no
changes to the standard were necessary. The comments and our specific
responses can be found in the document, Summary of Comments and EPA's
Responses on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review
and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes are needed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risk from the Carbon Black
Production source category is acceptable, the current standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more stringent
standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our
residual risk determination as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Carbon Black Production Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Carbon
Black Production source category?
We proposed a determination that it is not necessary to revise the
existing standards because we did not identify developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in
cost-effective emission reductions for the Carbon Black Production
source category. However, we did identify a potential gap in the
regulation, and proposed to broaden the scope of the standards under
the CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The final approach related to that
issue is discussed in section IV.C of this preamble. Additional
information on our technology review can be found in the memorandum,
Technology Review for Carbon Black Production Source Category, which is
available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
We also performed a technology review of the Carbon Black
Production area source NESHAP. As part of that review, the EPA did not
identify any currently operating sources in the Carbon Black Production
area source category, and therefore, we proposed no changes. In this
action, we are finalizing our proposed determination. For more
information on the review of potential area source facilities see the
memorandum, Identification of Area Sources for the Carbon Black
Production NESHAP, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
2. How did the technology review change for the Carbon Black Production
source category?
The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we
are finalizing our determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for both the major and area
source categories.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
We received two comments regarding the major source proposed
technology review and our proposed determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). Comments suggested changes to
our technology review to include additional technologies mentioned in
consent decrees, including incinerators, wet or dry gas scrubbers, and
selective catalytic reduction technologies. After review of these
comments, we determined that no changes to the standards were
necessary. Specifically, we determined that these technologies were not
cost-effective for controlling HAP from carbon black facilities. The
comments and our specific responses can be found in the document,
Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual
Risk and Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0505. We did not receive any comments on the area source
category proposed technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the technology review?
Our technology review sought to identify add-on control technology
that was not identified during the original NESHAP development and
improvements to existing add-on controls. We also sought to identify
new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, pollution
prevention alternatives, or techniques that have the potential to
reduce emissions. Based on our review, we did not identify any
technologies, that would result in cost-effective emission reductions
for the Carbon Black Production source category. Since proposal, no
information has been presented to cause us to change the proposed
determination. Consequently, we are finalizing our CAA section
112(d)(6) determination as proposed.
[[Page 66106]]
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Carbon Black Production source category?
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Carbon Black Production source category?
Under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) we proposed to broaden the
scope of the existing emission limit in the major source NESHAP, which
applies to process vents associated with the MUF, to include all
process vents associated with the carbon black production unit. The
expansion to cover all process vents under the Carbon Black Production
MACT standard is in accordance with LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 1088 (D.C.
Cir. 2020), in which the Court held that the EPA has an obligation to
set standards for unregulated pollutants which the EPA is required to
regulate as part of technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
We proposed to require all process vents that have a HAP
concentration of the emission stream equal to or greater than 260 ppmv,
including those located after the MUF, to reduce emissions of total HAP
by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is
less stringent. We also proposed to require applicability testing of
process vents located after the MUF and compliance with process vent
standards (where applicability threshold was exceeded) within 1 year
after the effective date of the final rule.
2. What changed since proposal?
We are finalizing a longer timeframe for previously unregulated
process vents to come into compliance with the requirements, since this
may require the addition of add-on controls. The extension changes the
proposed compliance date of 1 year from the effective date of the final
rule to 3 years from the effective date of the final rule.
3. What are the key comments and responses?
The EPA received comments generally supporting the proposal to
broaden the emission limit to apply to all process vents that have a
HAP concentration of the emission stream equal to or greater than 260
ppmv, associated with the carbon black production unit. One commenter
requested an extension to the compliance date.
a. Compliance Date Extension
Comment: The commenter stated that they do not believe carbon black
facilities will be able to implement the carbon black process vent
requirements for any previously unregulated process vents within 1 year
of the effective date. In support of their comment, the commenter
stated that the EPA has addressed similar situations in final rules by
allowing up to 3 years from the effective date of the final rule for
facilities to complete any necessary capital projects as allowed for by
CAA section 112(i). For a detailed summary of the comment, see the
document Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production
Residual Risk and Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area
Sources Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for
this source category.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commentor that, in the event that
the applicability test indicates that any newly identified process
vents are subject and require re-routing to an existing control device
or the construction of a new control device, the 1-year time period
that the EPA proposed to allow for carbon black facilities to bring the
process vents into compliance may be insufficient. As noted by the
commenter, while the 1-year time frame is sufficient for conducting the
applicability test, it may not provide enough time to complete the
process of safely designing and constructing the ductwork necessary to
either re-route the vent to an existing control device or design and
construct ductwork for re-routing the vent and a new control device. To
address this concern, the EPA is extending this time period in the
final rule and allowing up to 3 years from the effective date of the
final rule for facilities to complete any necessary capital projects as
allowed for by CAA section 112(i). The language at 40 CFR 63.1102(e)
has been amended in the final rule to reflect this change.
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the Carbon
Black Production Source Category
1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
The EPA proposed to remove the exemption for periods of startup and
shutdown. Additionally, we proposed a work practice standard during
periods of startup that would have allowed carbon black manufacturing
facilities to vent tail gas upon startup for a period not to exceed 13
minutes, and to begin running control devices thereafter. The proposed
work practice standard sought to address safety concerns surrounding
startup processes at carbon black manufacturing facilities. The EPA
proposed the work practice standard to mitigate the risk of explosion
at carbon black manufacturing facilities upon startup due to the
characteristics of the tail gas. The proposed work practice standard
addressed combustibility concerns by allowing tail gas to be vented
through the MUF vent for a short, time-limited period in order to
prevent excess oxygen from mixing with tail gas. The EPA time-limited
the proposed work practice standard to ensure sources would begin
routing tail gas to control devices as soon as practicable, while
accounting for variability across facilities that impact startup
procedures.
2. How did the proposed amendments to address emissions during periods
of SSM requirements change in the final rule?
The EPA initially proposed that the work practice standard would
apply for 13 minutes upon startup. Due to comments received on the
proposal, the EPA is finalizing a work practice standard that applies
to both startup and shutdown of the reactor. The work practice standard
allows the closed vent system to the control device to be bypassed,
during both startup and shutdown of a reactor, when the excess oxygen
concentration in the closed vent system is greater than or equal to 3
percent. Additionally, the maximum bypass period for the work practice
standard is extended from 13 minutes to 15 minutes. To determine when
the oxygen concentration of the closed vent system falls below 3
percent, each facility must use the calculated purge duration method or
oxygen sensors. The language at 40 CFR 63.1003(f)(5) has been amended
in the final rule to reflect these changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are
our responses?
The EPA received comments on several aspects of the proposed work
practice standard. Comments received include requests for (1) site-
specific procedures, (2) expansion of the standard to shutdown periods
(in addition to startup periods), (3) an increase in the time period
allowed under the work practice standard, and (4) specific regulatory
language changes. We are only revising requirements where credible
technical and/or safety issues were identified, while maintaining the
goal of minimizing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown to
the maximum extent practicable. These comments and the
[[Page 66107]]
EPA's response to these comments are provided below.
a. Site-Specific Startup and Shutdown Procedures
Comment: The commenter stated that factors affecting the time
needed for startup and shutdown procedures are specific to each
facility because the time needed to purge the closed vent system and/or
open and close valves depends on the configuration of the facility,
common tail gas header, and the production line; the volume of the
production line; the size of the valves; the production rate; and the
facility-specific operating procedures and provides an example. To
allow for this source-specific variability, the commenter suggested
that instead of relying solely on oxygen concentration, the regulation
should allow bypass of the control device during startup and shutdown
of a reactor in accordance with the maximum duration calculated using
the calculated purge duration method located in the startup and
shutdown plan (SSP) and that the startup and shutdown occur ``as
expeditiously as possible.'' The commenter stated that the use of
oxygen sensors in the MUF is not current industry practices, and that
of the current 15 major source facilities, only two of them have oxygen
sensors. The commenter also stated that the calculated purge duration
method in the SSP would include a calculation of the amount of time it
takes to purge the production line, as well as a safety factor that
accounts for the physical and technological constraints of the
facility; the maximum duration could not be more than 15 minutes. The
commenter stated that the SSP would provide the amount of time needed
when completing startup and shutdown ``as expeditiously as possible.''
For a more detailed summary of the comment, see the document Summary of
Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and
Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0505.
Response: The EPA agrees that the bypass time allowed for a reactor
to startup or shutdown should be source specific. The EPA acknowledges
that most facilities currently do not operate oxygen sensors and
relying solely on oxygen sensors to detect oxygen content in the
ductwork upon startup and shutdown could lead to undetected pockets of
high-oxygen concentration gases escaping the sensors, creating an
explosion risk within the ductwork at a facility.
Additionally, the EPA agrees that during startup the MUF vent must
be open and the common tail gas header closed when initially burning
feedstock oil to purge the line of excess oxygen. If the common tail
gas header is opened while the oxygen level was above 3 percent, there
is a risk of explosion due to the combustible nature of the tail gas.
Once the oxygen level falls below 3 percent (determined by using the
calculated purge duration method discussed below), the MUF vent must
gradually close while the common tail gas header is gradually opened.
This gradual change helps to ensure that constant pressure is
maintained within the closed vent system and common tail gas header.
The EPA acknowledges that maintaining constant pressure is important. A
sudden surge or interruption in tail gas flow could extinguish the
flame on the control device located downstream of the common tail gas
header. If the flame is extinguished, there is a risk that combustible
gases will build up in the common tail gas header; if combustible gases
build up in the common tail gas header, then these gases could cause an
explosion when the flame is relit.
The EPA found that all facilities currently use the calculated
purge duration method to predict when the oxygen level in the ductwork
drops below 3 percent. The calculated purge duration method estimates
the total time a facility needs to safely startup or shutdown a carbon
black production line by taking into account several factors, including
the volume of tail gas in the closed vent system, the flowrate within
the closed vent system, a safety factor, and the time needed to balance
pressure by opening and closing the necessary valves. Using the
calculated purge duration method is industry practice for facilities to
determine when oxygen levels are below 3 percent.
Since all facilities currently utilize the calculated purge
duration method, the EPA finds this practice to be representative of
the best performing facilities within the industry. The EPA is
declining to require SSPs in the final rule; instead, the EPA is
finalizing a change from proposal at 40 CFR 63.1103(f) to require
facilities to utilize the calculated purge duration method to determine
a site-specific maximum bypass duration upon startup and shutdown. The
EPA determined that including site-specific requirements at 40 CFR
63.1103(f) would accomplish the same goal as SSPs without adding
additional reporting burden.
b. Work Practice Standard Should Apply During Startup and Shutdown
Comment: The commenter requested that the proposed work practice
standard be revised to apply during shutdown as well as during startup.
In support of their comment, the commenter provided a comprehensive
discussion of the carbon black production startup and shutdown
processes and the reasoning for their request for modifications to the
proposed work practice standard requirements. Reasons for expanding the
work practice to shutdown as well as startup include the similarities
in the need to maintain constant pressure and to reduce the oxygen
content in the closed vent system to under 3 percent due to the risk of
explosion for both startup and shutdown. For a summary of their
detailed comments regarding startup and shutdown, see the document
Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual
Risk and Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources
Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Response: Based on the information provided by the commenter, EPA
agrees that shutdown operations present safety concerns similar to
those associated with startup. Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing a
revision to the proposed work practice standard so that it applies to
both startup and shutdown operations.
The EPA agrees that the shutdown process presents combustibility
concerns similar to startup. When facilities stop burning feedstock
oil, higher oxygen content is created in the closed vent system. This
creates an explosion risk if the oxygen level rises above 3 percent.
Therefore, prior to removing feedstock oil from the reactor, the common
tail gas header vent must be closed completely, diverting closed vent
system emissions from the common tail gas header to the MUF, before the
oxygen content begins to increase.
Similar to startup, constant pressure must be maintained within the
closed vent system during shutdown operations to reduce the risk of
explosion. To achieve constant pressure within the closed vent system,
the MUF vent must be slowly opened while the tail gas header vent is
slowly closed. Once the tail gas header has been completely closed and
the MUF vent is completely open, the burning of feedstock oil in the
reactor ceases. The
[[Page 66108]]
EPA acknowledges that maintaining constant pressure is important. A
sudden surge or interruption in tail gas flow could extinguish the
flame on the CCD or other combustion device located downstream of the
common tail gas header. If the flame is extinguished, there is a risk
that combustible gases will build up in the common tail gas header; if
combustible gases build up in the common tail gas header, then these
gases create an explosion risk when the flame is relit.
c. Work Practice Standard Time Allotment
Comment: The commenter requested that the maximum time allowed to
bypass the control device during startup and shutdown of a reactor be
increased from 13 minutes to 15 minutes. The commenter explained that
their request for this increase in time is based on the minimum time
necessary to completely purge the ductwork and MUF of certain
facilities. The commenter provided that this was previously agreed to
by the EPA in the consent decrees below.
In 2007, the EPA began a National Enforcement Initiative to
investigate the carbon black manufacturing sector. As a result of this
initiative, each of the International Carbon Black Association (ICBA)
member companies in the United States entered into a settlement with
the EPA and the Department of Justice regarding CAA claims
(hereinafter, the ``Consent Decrees''). The implementation of the terms
of these Consent Decrees has and will result in substantial changes to
the facilities as flares are removed and different control technologies
are installed at a significant cost. Many facilities have already
implemented the agreed upon technologies and others are in the
procurement stages.
The commenter stated that, in the preamble, the EPA explains that
``the 13-minute allotment to bypass the control device, corresponds
with the minimum time necessary to completely purge the ductwork and
primary bag filter of the facility representing the lowest production
rate.'' However, the commenter suggested that when setting the 13-
minute limit, it appears that the EPA did not fully consider the
agreed-upon time limit in all of the consent decrees or all of the
factors which affect how long it takes a facility to purge excess
oxygen and introduce tail gas to the common tail gas header while
balancing pressure. The commenter stated that the consent decree for
Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd. allowed a 15-minute bypass.8 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ United States v. Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd., 3:17-cv-01792-
SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Consent Decree, filed Dec. 22, 2017, at Sec.
III.8.oo.
\9\ United States v. Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd., 3:17-cv-01792-
SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Consent Decree, filed Dec. 22, 2017, at Sec.
III.8.oo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA acknowledges that the consent decree cited by the
commenter allows a 15-minute control device bypass upon startup for the
facility subject to the consent decree allotment to bypass the control
device. In their comment, the commenter provided information to the EPA
concerning the source-specific nature of startup and shutdown
operations at carbon black manufacturing facilities, including
technical support demonstrating that one source subject to this
rulemaking may need up to 15 minutes to purge the excess oxygen content
in the MUF vent during startup and shutdown operations in order to
mitigate combustibility concerns. To address this comment, in the final
rule, the EPA is extending the proposed 13-minute bypass period to a
maximum 15-minute bypass period. However, this time period is further
constrained by the calculated purge duration method. The EPA is also
finalizing a requirement that facilities subject to this rule use the
calculated purge duration method to determine the length of the startup
and/or shutdown bypass period required for a specific facility before
that specific facility may begin to safely operate control devices, and
the facility must begin operating control devices as soon as the
facility may safely do so. In no case do the finalized requirements
allow the startup or shutdown bypass period to exceed 15 minutes for
any facility. The EPA is also amending the work practice standard to
apply to periods of shutdown as well as startup.
As previously mentioned, carbon black production facilities
currently use the calculated purge duration method to predict when the
oxygen level in the closed vent system drops below 3 percent. The
calculated purge duration method considers the volume of tail gas in
the closed vent system, with an appropriate safety factor, and the time
needed to balance pressure and close or open the necessary valves.
Using the calculated purge duration method is common industry practice
for facilities to determine when oxygen levels are below 3 percent.
Since all facilities currently utilize the calculated purge
duration method, the EPA finds this practice to be representative of
the best performing facilities within the industry. As previously
discussed, the EPA is declining to require SSPs. Instead, the EPA is
modifying the proposed standard at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5) to require
facilities to utilize the calculated purge duration method or oxygen
sensors to determine a site-specific maximum bypass duration upon
startup and shutdown. In no case shall the maximum bypass duration
period exceed 15 minutes for any facility. The calculated purge
duration method is the same approach underlying the control device
bypass timeframes included in the enforcement-related consent decrees
for the carbon black industry.
4. What is the rationale for our changes to the proposed amendments to
address emissions during periods of SSM in the final rule?
Based on the consideration of comments received concerning
technical and safety concerns with the proposed work practice standard,
the EPA revised the work practice standard provisions in the final
rule. As discussed in our responses to comments in section IV.C.3 of
this preamble, we are only revising requirements where credible
technical and/or safety issues were identified, while maintaining the
goal of minimizing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown to
the maximum extent practicable.
E. Other Technical Amendments to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP
1. Boiler and Process Heater Annual Tune-Up Requirements
a. What amendments did we propose for boiler and process heater annual
tune-up requirements?
As a result of the EPA's assessment of the MACT standards that
currently apply to the Carbon Black Production source category under
subpart YY, the EPA received a comment that there may be instances
where carbon black production process vents at affected sources route
emissions to a boiler or process heater for use as fuel gas and may not
be subject to any requirements. Under the existing standards, although
emission streams may be subject to the Carbon Black Production MACT,
these streams are exempt from any requirements under the rule when
emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater for use as fuel gas.
Under the Boiler MACT, process heaters and boilers covered under
another standard (as with the Carbon Black Production MACT) are not
subject to the Boiler MACT.
The EPA proposed to revise subpart YY to include boiler and process
heater annual tune-up requirements for those boilers and process
heaters that receive
[[Page 66109]]
tail gas for use as fuel gas. These provisions were proposed in 40 CFR
63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of the final rule. The annual tune-up provisions
paralleled those specified under the Boiler MACT.
b. How did the proposed boiler and process heater tune-up requirements
change in the final rule?
The final rule revises the definition for ``process vent'' to
remove the fuel gas exemption for the Carbon Black Production source
category. This revised change ensures that the annual tune-up
requirements apply to process heaters and boilers, as intended.
The final rule also revises the text at 40 CFR
63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(A) (first sentence) to require inspection to be of
the ``combustion device'' instead of the ``burner,'' and at 40 CFR
63.1103(f)(iii)(B), (C), (D) and (E) to provide industry-specific
clarification on tune-up requirements.
c. What key comments did we receive on the proposed annual boiler and
process heater tune-up requirements and what are our responses?
The EPA received comments on the proposed boiler and process heater
tune-up requirements related to the applicability language and
specified tune-up procedures. These comments and the EPA's responses
and subsequent changes to the proposed boiler and process heater tune-
up provisions are provided below.
i. Applicability
Comment: The commenter suggested that the proposed language for the
annual tune-up requirement be changed so that it applies to the process
heaters and boilers that the EPA intended. The commenter noted that the
EPA explained that it added the annual tune-up requirement to close a
perceived loophole. The commenter stated that they are unsure whether
the proposed modifications in the proposal achieved the EPA's goal. The
commenter noted that while the preamble to the proposed rule identifies
the target of the annual tune-up requirements to be boilers and process
heaters receiving emissions to use as fuel gas, the language in the
proposed rule may not apply to the intended boilers or process heaters.
The commenter explained that, in the current regulations, emission
streams that are routed to a boiler or process heater for fuel gas are
not regulated as a process vent, because ``[g]as streams transferred
for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use reuse, or sale
for fuel value, use, or reuse,'' are excluded from the definition of
process vent. 40 CFR 63.1101. Therefore, the commenter noted that when
emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater for use as fuel gas
at a carbon black production facility, those points of discharge are
not process vents. The proposed rule does not alter the definition of
process vent, and the commenter was uncertain what effect the changes
to Table 8 of the proposed regulatory text would have on the current
standards. The commenter stated that changes in Table 8 of the proposed
regulatory text apply only to ``process vents'' and under the
definition of process vents, this would necessarily mean that it could
not include gas streams routed to boilers or process heaters for fuel
value. For a more detailed summary of the comment, see Summary of
Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and
Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0505.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that the proposed regulatory text
was unclear and could lead to subject facilities not complying with the
added boiler and process heater requirements. To resolve this issue,
the EPA is revising the definition for process vent to remove the fuel
gas exemption for the Carbon Black Production source category.
Specifically, the EPA is finalizing an amended definition of ``process
vent'' to remove the exemption for gas streams transferred for fuel
value, use, reuse, or sale for fuel value, use, or reuse for the carbon
black production source category.
ii. Annual Tune-Up Requirements
Comment: Commenters also requested tailored modifications to the
tune-up requirements to better reflect the specifications of combustion
devices typically used in the carbon black production process. The
commenter noted that carbon black combustion devices differ
significantly from natural gas combustion devices such that not all of
the proposed tune-up requirements apply In support of their comment,
the commenter states that additional optimization outside of inspection
and cleaning may not be possible for all facilities. For a more
detailed summary of the comment, see Summary of Comments and EPA's
Responses on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review
and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that, as a result of
the nature of the burner configuration and design of tail gas fired
boilers and process heaters in the Carbon Black Production source
category, the tune-up requirements of the proposed rule may not be able
to be performed as written. As the commenter noted, due to the lack of
an inspection port for the ``typical'' burner configuration used in the
carbon black production process, it may not be possible to perform a
direct inspection of the burner in operation, as described in 40 CFR
63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(A). Thus, the EPA is finalizing the suggested
revision to the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(A) to read
``[i]nspect the combustion device for damage, wear, and buildup of
material that could impact effectiveness'' rather than ``inspect the
burner.'' The EPA disagrees in part with the other changes suggested by
the commenter. As noted by the commenter, a ``typical'' burner
configuration may not be amenable to inspection of the flame pattern
and adjustment of the burner, but it is possible in some
configurations. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(B) has
been amended to require the inspection and adjustment only when
possible based upon the physical configuration of the burner.
Similarly, the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(C) state to
``[i]nspect the system controlling the air-to-fuel ratio, as
applicable, and ensure that it is correctly calibrated and functioning
properly.'' The EPA agrees that not all configurations of systems
controlling air-to-fuel ratio have calibrated components, but some
systems may have components that are calibrated and would need that
calibration verified. However, if a burner system does not have
anything to be calibrated, then ensuring proper calibration is not
necessary; the inspection of the fuel to air ratio controlling
mechanism in that case could be as simple as verifying that there are
no obstructions to the air intake in a natural draft system and
verifying proper fan operation for a fixed air flow fan. For these
reasons, the EPA also agrees that 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(C) should not
be finalized as proposed and is amending the final language to reflect
that ensuring proper calibration is only necessary for calibrated
components of the air-to-fuel system.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(D)
and (E) should not be finalized and disagrees that measurement of
carbon monoxide (CO)
[[Page 66110]]
is a poor indicator of optimized performance. As CO is a primary
component of tail gas, any tail gas not combusted by the boiler or
process heater will result in CO emissions. Additionally, CO is
produced from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons in the tail
gas. During proper operation of the combustion device, the output of CO
from either uncombusted tail gas or from incomplete combustion is
minimized. The EPA agrees that optimization beyond the inspection and
cleaning required in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(A) may not be possible for
the configuration of some carbon black facility combustion devices. In
such a scenario, the proposed language of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(D) was
clear that ``[t]his optimization should be consistent with the
manufacturer's specifications, if available.'' In instances where there
are no manufacturer's recommendations for optimization, the cleaning of
the combustion device constitutes the optimization procedure, and CO
measurement should be taken before and after cleaning the combustion
device. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(D) has been
amended from that proposed to more clearly reflect that, in the cases
where no manufacturer's specification for optimization are available,
the inspection and cleaning procedures of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(A)
fulfill the requirements of optimization and that when available,
manufacturer's specification should be used for the optimization
procedure. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(E) has been
amended from that proposed to reflect that if adjustments are not or
cannot be made, the measurements of CO are performed after the
inspection and cleaning procedures of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(A) are
performed.
d. What is the rationale for our final changes to the proposed boiler
and process heater annual tune-up provisions?
Based on the consideration of comments received on the combustion
devices typically used in the carbon black production process, we
clarified and revised the applicability and requirements of the annual
boiler and process heater tune-up requirements to better reflect the
combustion devices typically used. See our comment response directly
above in subsection ii, for our rationale for revisions based on our
evaluation of comments.
V. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses (when applicable). For all comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document available in the docket for this
source category.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
On January 15, 2021 (86 FR 3906), the EPA proposed that risk posed
by emissions from the source category is acceptable, that the current
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and
that additional standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. 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). The maximum estimated
cancer risk was below the presumptive limit of acceptability and the
noncancer risk results indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse
noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions from this source
category. The proposed decision on ample margin of safety was based on
weighing factors relevant to this particular source category, including
the risk posed by emissions from the category and the costs and cost-
effectiveness of additional controls to reduce risk further, as well as
uncertainties in the baseline emissions estimates used in estimating
risk, the costs and effectiveness of the work practices we considered
to reduce these emissions, and the amount of risk reduction that could
be achieved with the work practices. A more thorough discussion of the
risk assessment is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule document, available in the docket
for cyanide chemicals manufacturing (Docket-EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532). In
the proposed rule, as presented in Table 2 below, based on modeling
actual emissions from the source category for all 13 facilities, we
estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed was
equal to 5-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to
inhalation exposures resulting from emissions from the source category
was 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 250
years with 61,653 people exposed to an excess cancer risk greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions
from the source category. Emissions of acrylonitrile from process vents
account for 95 percent of the cancer incidence. The Agency estimated
that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure for
this source category was equal to 1. In the screening assessment of
worst-case acute inhalation impacts, we estimated a maximum HQ of 1
(due to hydrogen cyanide) based on the REL. In the proposal, the EPA
estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from cyanide
chemicals manufacturing sources, and we considered these in determining
acceptability. As shown in Table 2, the chronic cancer and non-cancer
risks are the same for allowable emissions as they are for actual
emissions.
Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing \1\ Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Estimated
Number of individual increased risk population at Estimated annual Maximum chronic noncancer Maximum screening acute
Risk assessment facilities \2\ cancer risk (1- of cancer increased risk cancer incidence TOSHI \4\ noncancer HQ \5\
in-1 million) >=1-in-1 of cancer >=10- (cases per year)
\3\ million in-1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................... 13 5 61,653 0 0.004 1 (neurological)............... 1 (REL).
Facility-wide........................... 13 200 266,532 58,000 0.04 1 (neurological). ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66111]]
Baseline Allowable Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................... 13 5 61,653 0 0.004 1 (neurological). ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 13 operating cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Cyanide Chemical Manufacturing source category is the neurological system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute
1-hour dose-response value, the REL for hydrogen cyanide. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
The EPA also estimated inhalation risk based on facility-wide
emissions. The estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk
based on facility-wide emissions was 200-in-1 million, with 0.04 excess
cancer cases per year, or one case every 25 years. This cancer risk is
driven by emissions sources that are not in the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category; specifically, emissions of ethylene
oxide and polycyclic organic matter from non-category sources account
for 95 percent of the cancer incidence. Approximately 150 people are
exposed to an excess cancer risk greater than or equal to 100-in-1
million, with 266,532 people exposed to an excess cancer risk above 1-
in-1 million. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for
the facility-wide assessment was the same as estimated based on actual
and allowable emissions from the source category. The TOSHI value was
equal to 1 for neurological effects driven by hydrogen cyanide
emissions from process vents, wastewater, and equipment leaks.
Regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide emissions,
which are emitted by sources that are not part of the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category, we intend to continue to evaluate those
facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address
these in separate actions, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is
addressing ethylene oxide in response to the results of the latest
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, which
identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across
the country.\10\ The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide
significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some
census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number
of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk
value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA is taking steps to address
ethylene oxide emissions by: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate,
revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide--
starting with air toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing facilities (85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020) and
commercial sterilizers; and (2) working with industry and state, local,
and tribal air agencies to achieve near-term emission reductions. The
EPA posts updates on its work to address ethylene oxide at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics screening tool,
designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies
identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for further
examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also conducted a multipathway screening assessment for the
source category, and the results of the screening assessment are
presented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2021
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, and section IV of the proposal
preamble (86 FR 3906, January 15, 2021) available in the docket for
this action. A screening value is not an estimate of the cancer risk or
a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end
estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For this source category the
highest cancer screening value was a Tier 2 cancer screening value less
than 1 for arsenic emissions, which means that we are confident that
the multipathway cancer risk is lower than 1-in-1 million. The highest
Tier 2 non-cancer screening value for the category was less than 1 for
mercury emissions, which can be interpreted to mean that we are
confident that the chronic HQ for mercury is less than 1.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the
secondary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/
m\3\), arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The
highest annual average lead concentration, 0.000004 ug/m\3\, is far
below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for
multipathway impacts from lead.
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. For further additional detail on
the environmental risk screening assessment, refer to the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule.
In determining whether risk is acceptable for this source category,
the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation
uncertainty, including the uncertainty in the emissions data. Further
discussion of the uncertainties in our risk assessment can be found in
section III.C.7 of the preamble to the proposed rule at 86 FR 3918.
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied to this source category to
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP
from the source category. At proposal, we determined that the risk from
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing emissions is acceptable and that the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent an adverse environmental effect. In this action, we are
finalizing our proposed determination. See section IV.C of the proposal
preamble (86 FR 3906, 3923-3924) for a discussion of the results of our
risk assessment and analyses and our proposed decisions
[[Page 66112]]
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effects. The EPA is not amending the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). The maximum cancer risk for all facilities was 5-in-1
million, which is 20 times below 100-in-1 million, the presumptive
upper limit of acceptable risk. In addition, there were no facilities
with an estimated maximum chronic noncancer HI or maximum HQ greater
than 1. Based upon these considerations and the lack of additional
cost-effective control technologies to reduce risk further, we proposed
and are finalizing a determination that the 2002 Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. Based on the results of our environmental risk
screening assessment, we also proposed and are finalizing a
determination that more stringent standards are not necessary to
prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category?
We did not receive any information that changed our determination
concerning risk and we are finalizing our proposed conclusion on the
risk review.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received several comments regarding the proposed risk review and
our proposed determination that no revisions to the standard were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). Comments both supported and
suggested changes to our risk review. Commenters opposed our proposed
decisions regarding risk acceptability and certain aspects of our risk
assessment methodology. After review of these comments, we determined
that no changes to the standard were necessary because the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document,
Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Residual Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available
in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes are needed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risk from the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category is acceptable, the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our residual risk determination as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
At proposal, we proposed to determine that it is not necessary to
revise the existing standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) because
we did not identify developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that would result in cost-effective emission reductions
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Additional
information on our technology review can be found in the memorandum,
Technical Support Document for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology Review Proposal, which is available
in the docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-
0025) and section IV.D of the proposal preamble (86 FR 3924). The EPA
is not amending the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP based on our
technology review. However, we did identify a potential gap in the
regulation, and proposed standards for process wastewater at existing
sources and upstream suppression of process wastewater at new sources
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The final approach related to
that issue is discussed in section V.C of this preamble.
2. How did the technology review change for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category?
The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we
are finalizing our determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
We received two comments regarding the proposed technology review
and our proposed determination that no revisions were warranted under
CAA section 112(d)(6). One commenter suggested changes to our
technology review to include additional technologies related to flares
and equipment leaks. After review of these comments, we determined that
no changes to the standards were necessary because these technologies
would not result in cost-effective emission reductions for the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing source category. The comments and our specific
responses can be found in the document, Summary of Comments and EPA's
Responses on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0532.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the technology review?
Our technology review sought to identify add-on control technology
that was not identified during the original NESHAP development and
improvements to existing add-on controls. We also sought to identify
new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, pollution
prevention alternatives, or techniques that have the potential to
reduce emissions. Based on our review, we did not identify any such
developments that would result in cost-effective emission reductions
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Since
proposal, no information has been presented to cause us to change the
proposed determination. Consequently, we are finalizing our CAA section
112(d)(6) determination as proposed.
C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category
1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
Consistent with the 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA
evaluated the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP requirements to
identify the need to eliminate any SSM exemptions in the rule to ensure
that standards that apply during normal operations apply at all times.
As noted at proposal (86 FR 3906, 3924), the Cyanide Chemicals
[[Page 66113]]
Manufacturing source category NESHAP did not include an exemption for
SSM events, and already included standards that apply at all times,
including periods of SSM. Therefore, we determined that the NESHAP was
already consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, in which the Court vacated
two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply
with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. However, we proposed revisions to subpart YY at 40 CFR
63.1108 through 40 CFR 63.1112 to remove any references associated with
the GMACT that contained SSM exemptions for other source categories and
from referenced subparts to reduce confusion. The EPA did not propose
any other amendments addressing emissions during SSM periods because of
our determination that the NESHAP already included standards that apply
at all times, including periods of SSM.
2. How did the proposed SSM-related amendments change in the final
rule?
We are finalizing our proposal to remove SSM exemption language
included in 40 CFR 63.1108 through 40 CFR 63.1112 and GMACT referenced
subparts.
3. What key comments did we receive on SSM-related emissions and what
are our responses?
While one commenter provided support for the EPA's removal of
references to provisions that contained SSM exemptions for other source
categories and from referenced subparts to reduce confusion, the
commenter expressed concern that the EPA had not removed references to
SSM exemptions in HON-referenced provisions and that the EPA must
assure full removal of SSM exemptions in the final rule to assure
compliance with the CAA.
Other commenters expressed concern that the EPA had not established
work practice standards to cover situations that they contend had been
covered under their SSM plan included under the SSM exemption
requirements that were proposed to be removed. The commenter requested
that the EPA include provisions for specified circumstances that were
previously covered under their SSM plan similar to what was included
for the ethylene production source category in subpart YY.
These comments and the EPA's responses to these comments are
provided below.
a. Elimination of the SSM Exemption
Comment: One commenter noted that SSM events play a considerable
role in the issue of pollution and environmental contamination as these
processes increase an industrial plant's pollution and noted concern
that the EPA would continue to maintain SSM exemptions in this rule.
Another commenter supported the removal of the SSM exemptions, stating
that removal of these provisions is required to assure compliance with
the CAA because this is a `necessary' revision under CAA section
112(d)(6).
Response: As discussed in section V.C.1 of this preamble, we are
finalizing revisions (as proposed) to subpart YY at 40 CFR 63.1108
through 40 CFR 63.1112 to remove any references associated with the
GMACT that contained SSM exemptions for other source categories and
referenced subparts.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's proposed standards are
illegal because the HON standard the EPA is proposing to incorporate
for wastewater requirements includes the illegal SSM exemption that the
EPA admits it must remove from the cyanide chemical manufacturing rules
here under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter stated that the EPA may
not lawfully remove the exemption and then immediately reinstate it by
incorporation of an equally illegal SSM exemption in the HON.
Response: The EPA assessed the specific HON wastewater provisions
referenced in the proposed Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing MACT rule
and did not identify any language containing exemptions for periods of
SSM. The commenter made a general allegation about exemptions and did
not identify any specific provisions that contained exemptions. The EPA
has therefore not made changes to the final rule based on this comment.
b. Pressure Relief Devices (PRD) in HAP Service
Comment: One commenter stated, ``[p]ressure relief discharges to
the atmosphere from cyanide chemicals manufacturing covered processes
are rare. However, if a discharge from a [PRD] occurs, it would
currently be addressed under the SSM plan and the emissions would be
reported to the appropriate regulatory entities if the amount is
greater than an applicable Reportable Quantity (RQ) for any air
contaminant.'' The commenter contended that, because the SSM plan will
be proposed to be withdrawn 180 days after the rule is amended, ``any
modifications to the process or additions of emissions control
equipment are not feasible in this timeframe.'' Therefore, the
commenter suggested including in this rule the same work practice
requirements for PRDs that are in the subpart YY regulation for the
ethylene production source category, which the commenter alleges also
has a small number of PRDs venting to the atmosphere.
Specifically, the commenter recommended that the EPA incorporate
the work practice standards of 40 CFR 63.1107(h)(3) through (8) within
the Cyanide Chemicals manufacturing rule in order to ``address any
potential discharge from a [PRD] that is on fixed equipment and to
exempt any [PRD] from infeasible monitoring for portable containers and
mobile equipment.'' The commenter requested that any referenced
citations in the aforementioned section be aligned with the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing MACT rule and noted that certain ethylene flare
provisions are not applicable to this source category.
Additionally, the commenter suggested that the associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1109(i) and
63.1110(e)(8) may also be appropriate to add to the rule in support of
the PRD work practice standards.
Response: The EPA has not added the provisions requested by the
commenter. While these or similar provisions exist in NESHAP for some
source categories, the EPA does not have data (nor was sufficient data
provided) to demonstrate that such provisions are warranted for the
cyanide chemicals manufacturing NESHAP. The commenter requested these
provisions be added to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP
because they exist in the Ethylene Production NESHAP. The commenter did
not definitively assert that any PRDs exist that would be subject to
this action, nor whether they are controlled or atmospheric PRDs.
The commenter stated that there is insufficient time to implement
process modifications/add emissions control equipment within 180 days
after the rule is amended. This statement acknowledged that the process
can be modified and emissions control equipment can be used to meet
standards at all times. Without data to support the need for specific
work practice provisions for PRDs, including the prevalence of PRDs,
whether they are routed to control devices, the frequency of releases,
magnitude of emissions during releases, and costs of further controls,
we have insufficient basis to add these requirements for the
[[Page 66114]]
cyanide chemicals manufacturing source category.
c. Maintenance Vents
Comment: One commenter requested that, since the SSM plan and
various exceptions are proposed to be removed within 180 days after the
rule is amended, the same work practice requirements for maintenance
vents that are in the subpart YY regulation for the ethylene production
source category be included ``so that it is clear that equipment can be
cleared and opened for maintenance or other similar work.''
The commenter provided that some covered facilities include similar
work practice provisions in Texas New Source Review air permits for
routine maintenance activities. According to the commenter,
``[i]ncluding provisions for maintenance vents in the final rule will
clarify the requirements when these maintenance activities occur.''
The commenter suggested the following requirements and options when
incorporating the subpart YY regulation for the ethylene production
source category maintenance vents language:
Limit the lower explosive limit (LEL) to 10 percent; and
Limit the concentration of hydrocarbons or hydrogen cyanide to
500 ppmv measured using one of the following options:
[cir] The use of an instrument that complies with EPA Method 21 in
40 CFR part 60, appendix A (measures total hydrocarbon concentration)
[cir] The use of colorimetric gas detector tubes provided the tube
is used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines (measures hydrogen
cyanide concentration); or
[cir] The use of an electrochemical sensor for hydrogen cyanide
(measures hydrogen cyanide concentration).
Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1109(f) and 63.1110(e)(5) may also
be appropriate to add to the rule in support of the maintenance venting
provisions.
Response: The EPA has not made the commenter's suggested revisions.
The commenter did not provide sufficient information regarding why they
could not meet the standards or why their suggested requirements should
be included.
Additionally, neither limiting the LEL to 10 percent nor limiting
the concentration to 500 ppmv when considering hydrogen cyanide are
defensible. The 10 percent LEL for hydrogen cyanide in air is 5,600
ppm. Hydrogen cyanide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may
cause central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects
that could lead to death. The Occupational and Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has concluded that a variety of symptoms are
associated with exposure to hydrogen cyanide at levels less than 10 ppm
and has established a 4.7-ppm 15-minute short term exposure limit
(STEL) as the permissible exposure limit (PEL).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/74908.html, 1988 OSHA PEL
Project--Hydrogen Cyanide [verbar] NIOSH [verbar] CDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Storage Vessel Degassing--Fixed Roof Storage Tanks
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA include the same
requirements for storage vessel degassing for fixed roof tanks that are
in the subpart YY regulation for the ethylene production source
category. The commenter suggested the following requirements and
options when incorporating the subpart YY regulation for ethylene
production storage vessel degassing language:
Limit the LEL to 10 percent; and
Limit the concentration of hydrocarbons or hydrogen cyanide to
500 ppmv measured using one of the following options:
[cir] The use of an instrument that complies with EPA Method 21 in
40 CFR part 60, appendix A (measures total hydrocarbon concentration)
[cir] The use of colorimetric gas detector tubes provided the tube
is used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines (measures hydrogen
cyanide concentration); or
[cir] The use of an electrochemical sensor for hydrogen cyanide
(measures hydrogen cyanide concentration).
Response: The EPA has not made the commenter's requested revisions.
However, insufficient information was provided to support their
contention that they could not meet the standards during storage vessel
degassing or why their suggested requirements should be included.
As discussed in section V.C.3.c above for Maintenance Vents,
neither limiting the LEL to 10 percent or limiting the concentration to
500 ppmv when considering hydrogen cyanide are defensible. The 10
percent LEL for hydrogen cyanide in air is 5,600 ppm. Hydrogen cyanide
is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may cause central nervous
system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects that could lead to
death. The OSHA has concluded that a variety of symptoms are associated
with exposure to hydrogen cyanide at levels less than 10 ppm and has
established a 4.7-ppm 15-minute STEL as the PEL.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/74908.html, 1988 OSHA PEL
Project--Hydrogen Cyanide [verbar] NIOSH [verbar] CDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What is the rationale for our final changes to the SSM-related
amendments?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule
(86 FR 3906, 3924), we determined that these amendments, which remove
and revise provisions related to SSM, are necessary to ensure there is
no confusion that standards are required to apply at all times,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. More information concerning the
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed
rule and in our specific responses to the comments above (section
V.C.3). Therefore, we are finalizing our amendments for the SSM
provisions as proposed.
D. Other Technical Amendments to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
NESHAP
1. What wastewater provision amendments did we propose?
As discussed in section II.D of this preamble and in the proposal
preamble for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP (see 86 FR
3906, 3920-3921), the EPA proposed standards pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (d)(3) for process wastewater from existing cyanide
chemical manufacturing process units, which was previously unregulated.
We proposed that process wastewater sources at existing sources comply
with HON wastewater requirements. We proposed the HON requirements for
cyanide chemicals manufacturing existing sources because the HON
requirements represented: (1) The measures employed by the best
performing sources in the category; and (2) an acceptable means of
compliance for wastewater emissions at sources subject to subpart YY.
We also proposed adding the HON requirements for waste management units
upstream of an open or closed biological treatment process to the new
source standard to ensure demonstrable compliance measures are in place
for these sources.
[[Page 66115]]
2. How did the proposed wastewater provision amendments change in the
final rule?
We are finalizing the proposed wastewater provision amendments with
minor clarifications (see section V.D.3.d).
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposed wastewater
provision amendments and what are our responses?
Environmental groups provided comments on the basis for the EPA's
selected standards and contended that the proposed limits were not
sufficient to satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3), which requires the
maximum achievable degree of emission limitation.
Industry commenters requested that clarifications of the
applicability of the wastewater requirements be included in the final
rule and that the EPA provide additional compliance options to what was
proposed in the final rule. These commenters also requested that the
EPA include a test method for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide compounds in
the final rule.
These comments and the EPA's responses are provided below.
a. Basis-Support for Wastewater Provisions
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's recognition that it must
set limits on uncontrolled HAP emissions from process wastewater under
CAA section 112(d)(6)--including hydrogen cyanide, acetonitrile, and
acrylonitrile,\13\ but contended that the limits are not strong enough
to satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3), which requires the maximum
achievable degree of emission limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 86 FR at 3920 & n.23, 3921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter stated that the EPA proposes ``to just require
compliance with the [HON] wastewater requirements for process
wastewater and upstream waste management units at existing sources--and
to add HON requirements for waste management units.'' \14\ The
commenter claimed that the EPA does not discuss what the proposed
requirements are in the preamble other than referencing the outdated
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 86 FR at 3921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the commenter, the EPA's proposed wastewater standards
are ``illegally and arbitrarily weak and must be strengthened before
finalizing.'' The commenter stated that the EPA has not performed any
floor analysis as required by CAA section 112(d)(3) and instead appears
to rely on the outdated 2008 HON rule and old and unreliable data, not
included here, as its justification for not requiring stronger
wastewater standards. The commenter noted that there is no assessment
of what the best-performing standards have achieved, or what the
average emission limitation achieved is. The commenter added that the
EPA also does not demonstrate that the 2008 HON standards satisfy the
CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3) test for cyanide chemical manufacturing
wastewater process sources.
Lastly, the commenter asserted that the EPA's proposed wastewater
standards are illegal and arbitrary because the EPA has given only a
conclusory statement to attempt to satisfy the beyond-the-floor
requirement of CAA section 112(d)(2). According to the commenter, the
EPA has failed to show how its proposal reflects the ``maximum
achievable'' degree of emission limitation for these sources. The
commenter stated that citing to data not in the record from 2004,
without discussion or any rational explanation, does not meet the EPA's
statutory obligation. The commenter contended that the EPA should
collect current data, review more recent wastewater control methods,
and perform a lawful beyond-the-floor analysis to ensure that it
requires the ``maximum achievable'' degree of emission reduction in the
final standards.
Response: The EPA evaluated the data available to the Agency at the
time the proposed MACT standards for process wastewater at existing
cyanide chemicals manufacturing sources were developed. We also
reviewed title V permits for all cyanide chemicals manufacturing
facilities and determined that all existing facilities subject to the
cyanide NESHAP are also subject to the HON wastewater requirements or
other NESHAP that also incorporate those requirements. We concluded
that these requirements constitute the performance of the best
performing facilities in the source category. These standards represent
the best measures that we identified for minimizing wastewater
emissions from the category, and we did not identify additional
measures that could further reduce emissions ``beyond the floor''. The
commenter did not provide any data to support their conclusion that
these requirements are not representative of the best performers.
Our conclusion at proposal that the HON process wastewater
requirements represent the MACT floor has not changed and we are
finalizing those requirements with minor clarifications (see section
V.D.3.d of this preamble for minor clarification changes made in the
final rule).
b. Fraction Measured (Fm)/Fraction Removal (Fr) Values for Hydrogen
Cyanide/Cyanide Compounds
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA provide a Fm value
for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide compounds so that the regulated entity
can comply with the applicability option described in 40 CFR
63.144(b)(1) of subpart G. Similarly, the commenter also requested that
the EPA provide a Fr value for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide compounds so
that the regulated entity can comply with the option available in 40
CFR 63.138(e)(2) of subpart G. The commenter recommended that this
value would be no greater than 0.93, as it is the removal requirement
for new cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units, but also noted
it could be less based on the physical properties of hydrogen cyanide
or cyanide compounds.
Response: 40 CFR 63.144(b)(1) allows several options for
determining how to calculate the annual average concentration,
including knowledge of the wastewater, bench-scale or pilot scale test
data, or test data from sampling at the point of determination or at a
location downstream of the point of determination. For free cyanide,
the final rule adds specific procedures for determining the annual
average concentration of free cyanide (see 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(5)(vi) of
the final rule). For compliance with the wastewater free cyanide
analysis provisions of Table 9 to 40 CFR 63.1103(g), free cyanide is to
be measured according to ASTM D4282-15 (Standard Test Method for
Determination of Free Cyanide in Water and Wastewater by
Microdiffusion) or ASTM D7237 (Standard Test Method for Free Cyanide
and Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing
Gas Diffusion Separation and Amperometric Detection). Under 40 CFR
63.144(b)(1) of subpart G, Fm adjustment factors are allowed under
specified circumstances (e.g., when concentration is determined by
Method 305 as specified in 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i)(B), concentration may
be adjusted by dividing by the compound-specific Fm). For free cyanide
measured according to ASTM D4282-15 or ASTM D7237 (as required under
the final rule), the EPA is not including an Fm adjustment factor
option.
In addition to the compliance option available under 40 CFR
63.138(e)(2) of the rule that requires an Fr value to demonstrate
compliance, an owner or operator has other compliance options that do
not require an Fr value.
[[Page 66116]]
However, the EPA acknowledges that existing sources complying with 40
CFR part 63 subpart G wastewater provisions may already be complying
with wastewater requirements under the 40 CFR part 63 subpart G
wastewater provisions that require an Fr value for individual HAP in
order to demonstrate compliance. To allow flexibility to owners and
operators in complying with the process wastewater options that we
proposed for cyanide chemicals manufacturing existing sources under 40
CFR 63.138(a)(1), the final rule has added that, for compliance options
and calculations requiring an Fr value under 40 CFR 63.138(a)(1), an
owner or operator may use a value of 0.93 for free cyanide (see Table 9
to 40 CFR 63.1103(g), line entry (g) of the final rule). This value is
based on the requirement that new sources meet an emissions control
level of 93 percent for process wastewater streams.
c. Hydrogen Cyanide/Cyanide Compound Test Methods To Measure Wastewater
Stream Concentration
Comment: One commenter stated that the HON regulation includes a
number of options for determining the concentration of the regulated
organic HAP compounds in a process wastewater stream. The commenter
provided that the existing 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i) of the HON regulation
does not have a listed test method for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide
compounds. The commenter recommended that the EPA include any approved
test methods in Table 1B of 40 CFR 136.3 in the final Cyanide Chemicals
manufacturing rule (subpart YY) for these measurements that the
regulated entity can use if they opt to make measurements.
The commenter also requested that EPA include any updates to the
test method(s) automatically in the rule as an option for the regulated
entities to use. The commenter suggested that, if EPA Method 335.4 is
updated in the future, the regulated entity should be able to use
either EPA Method 335.4 or the updated method.
Response: The EPA has added 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(5)(vi) to include two
test methods for measuring the concentration of cyanide in water (ASTM
4282-15 and ASTM 7237-18). The test methods in the table submitted by
the commenter were not included because they corresponded to parameters
that were irrelevant (total cyanide concentration and available cyanide
concentration) or were, subsequent to the submission of the comment,
supplanted by a new version of the method in Table 1B. Available
cyanide refers to cyanide that is loosely bound in metal-ion complexes,
and total cyanide refers to the sum of available and free cyanide. Free
cyanide is toxic and bioavailable cyanide, and this is the form of
cyanide that the EPA intends to limit. Table 1B of 40 CFR 136.3 was
updated July 19, 2021 (86 FR 27226) to incorporate updated versions of
the free cyanide methods. The updated versions of the two ASTM methods
for free cyanide are included in the final rule, but the OI Analytical
method was excluded, as the method text actually describes how to
measure available cyanide and does not include information on the
modifications necessary to test for free cyanide. EPA Method 335.4 was
not included as this method is only available in draft and has not yet
been finalized.
d. Request for Clarifications
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify the text in
the proposed paragraph (g) of Table 9 of the proposed 40 CFR part 63
subpart YY regulation to confirm that the provisions apply to each
individual wastewater stream.
Response: The EPA has revised line entries (g)(1) and (g)(2) (for
existing sources) of Table 9 to 63.1103(g) in the final rule as
recommended by the commenter to clarify the EPA's intent that the
wastewater requirements apply to each individual wastewater stream.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA clarify that the
term ``cyanide compounds'' is the same as ``cyanide chemicals
product''.
Response: The EPA has added a definition for the term ``free
cyanide'' in 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(2) to clarify the EPA's intent that
hydrogen cyanide and cyanide ion (both of which may be present in
wastewater due to dissolution of cyanide salts) are the cyanide
chemical compounds subject to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
source category wastewater provisions.
4. What is the rationale for our final changes to proposed wastewater
provision amendments?
We evaluated the comments on the EPA's proposed process wastewater
amendments for existing and new sources. For the reasons explained in
the proposed rule (86 FR 3906, 3920-3921), we determined that the
process wastewater amendments for existing and new sources are
necessary to ensure all affected sources in the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing source category are subject to MACT standards, and that
the requirements for waste management units upstream of an open or
closed biological treatment process for new sources are necessary to
ensure demonstrable compliance measures are in place for these sources.
More information concerning the amendments we are finalizing is in the
preamble to the proposed rule and in our specific responses to the
comments above (section V.D.3). Therefore, we are finalizing the
wastewater amendments as proposed, with minor clarifications (see
section V.D.3.b-e).
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A summary of cost, environmental, and economic impacts is presented
in section VI.A for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP and section VI.B
for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP final rule amendments.
A. Carbon Black Production
1. What are the affected facilities?
The EPA estimates that there are 15 production facilities in the
Carbon Black Production major source category that are subject to the
Carbon Black Production NESHAP and affected by the final amendments to
40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. The basis of our estimates of affected
facilities is provided in the memorandum, Identification of Major
Sources for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP, which is available in
the docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-
0022). We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new or
reconstructed carbon black production facilities in the source
category. No carbon black production area sources were identified;
therefore, there are no area sources subject to this rulemaking.
2. What are the air quality impacts?
While we are broadening the scope of the current Carbon Black
Production standard, setting annual tune-up requirements for process
heaters and boilers, removing the SSM exemption, and establishing a
work practice standard for periods of startup and shutdown, we do not
have data to determine quantitatively the reduction in HAP emissions
resulting from this action. Through discussions with industry members,
it is our understanding that process vents located after the MUF are
likely already below the applicability threshold where additional
controls will be required. The other requirements we are adding are
based on current industry practices. For this reason, we do not
anticipate that this action will result in significant HAP emission
reductions.
[[Page 66117]]
3. What are the cost impacts?
Costs were developed on a per facility basis for Carbon Black
Production facilities, and all facilities were determined to have
similar costs. Costs are presented in 2019 dollars. Costs were broken
into three separate categories based on final requirements: Initial
Applicability Test, Performance Test, and Boiler/Process Heater
Maintenance Costs.
Initial applicability testing costs include costs associated with
the final requirements for process vents located after the MUF to meet
the standard, which will require facilities to determine whether
emissions control is needed for process vents after the MUF process
vent. We estimate this to be a one-time cost of $21,350 per facility,
due to the assumption that the majority of HAP is removed and
controlled at the MUF, which likely results in the vent stream
concentration located after the MUF falling below the HAP applicability
concentration threshold (260 ppmv).
Performance test costs include costs associated with the
requirement to conduct emissions tests at the subject process vents
every 5 years starting in the first year after promulgation. Based on
our understanding of industry practices and emissions profiles, we do
not expect any process vents located after the MUF to exceed the
applicability threshold, which would require them to conduct
performance tests. Facilities must conduct performance tests no more
than 60 months after the preceding test when demonstrating compliance
with process vent emission control requirements. We estimate that 20
percent of subject facilities will conduct a performance test each year
resulting in an annual cost of $15,241 per facility.
Boiler/process heater maintenance costs include costs associated
with the final requirement to ensure that boilers and process heaters
are operating at peak efficiency and not creating excess emissions
through inefficient operation. Initial tune-up costs are assumed to be
higher to get the units back to peak efficiency. We assume that
subsequent year costs would be lower because less maintenance would be
needed. As such, we estimate the initial tune-up cost to be $6,750 per
facility and subsequent annual tune-ups to cost $1,350 per facility.
Costs were based primarily on labor, equipment, and travel costs.
Labor costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data for relevant
employees necessary to perform the tests and maintenance. A detailed
cost analysis can be found in the memorandum, Carbon Black Cost
Memorandum, available in the docket for this action (see Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0007).
4. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the final
requirements and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a final rule. Economic costs to carbon black producers were
measured in Present Value (PV) total costs and Equivalent Annual Value
(EAV) costs. All producer facilities were estimated to have similar
costs. All costs are presented in 2019 dollars. Refer to the
memorandum, Carbon Black Economic Impact Analysis, in the docket for
this rulemaking for more information (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0505-0008). PV total costs and EAV costs were measured at the 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rate. The duration of analysis was 10
years which represented two full cycles of cost analysis for the final
requirements. Per facility PV total costs were estimated to be $70,000
and $63,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates,
respectively. EAV costs per facility were estimated to be $8,000 and
$9,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates, respectively. The
combined PV total cost of the final requirements for all facilities was
estimated to be $1,005,000 and $945,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent
discount rates, respectively. The combined EAV cost of the final
requirements for all facilities was estimated to be $118,000 and
$135,000 at the 3-percent and 7- percent discount rates, respectively.
No carbon black production facilities subject to this rule are small
businesses based on Small Business Administration standards. Because
the PV and EAV costs associated with the final revisions are minimal,
no significant economic impacts from the final amendments are
anticipated. Refer to the Carbon Black Economic Impact Memorandum,
available in the docket (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0008),
for more information.
5. What are the benefits?
As discussed in section VI.A.2 of this preamble, we do not
anticipate the finalized amendments to the Carbon Black Production
source category to significantly impact air quality. The electronic
submittal of the reports addressed in this 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; will improve compliance 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.
Although the EPA does not anticipate any significant reductions in
HAP emissions as a result of the final amendments to the Carbon Black
Production NESHAP, we believe that the final action will result in
improvements to the rule by broadening the current emission limit,
requiring an annual tune-up for boilers and process heaters, and
revising the SSM standards such that a standard applies at all times,
including periods covered by the final work practice standard.
Additionally, the final amendments requiring electronic submittal of
NOCS reports, performance test results, and periodic reports will
increase the usefulness of the data, are in keeping with current trends
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in reduced
reporting burden on the regulated community.
6. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA staff to identify the
populations of concern who are most likely to experience unequal
burdens from environmental harms; specifically, minority populations,
low-income populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance
racial equity and support underserved communities through federal
government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income
[[Page 66118]]
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing
that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In
the analysis, we also evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer
and noncancer risks from the Carbon Black Production major source
category across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities. The demographic analysis and the risk analysis
are contained in the docket and were summarized in the proposed rule
preamble.
When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from
carbon black production facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1.
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, of the total
population residing within 5km of facilities in the source category,
the percentages of people who are African American, age greater than or
equal to 65, age greater than or equal to 25 years of age without a
high school diploma, and below the poverty level are greater than the
national average percentages of people in those demographic groups. The
EPA also provided demographic results for populations residing within
50km.
Based on analyses of exposed populations, the EPA determined that
this action is unlikely to pose a disproportionately high adverse
health impact on minority populations and/or low-income populations, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and
referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021).
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 Carbon Black
Production Source Category Operations, available in the docket for the
Carbon Black Production source category NESHAP (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0014).
7. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
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 assessment are documented in
the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Carbon Black
Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2021 Final Rule, available in the docket for the Carbon Black
Production source category NESHAP (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0505).
B. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
1. What are the affected facilities?
There are 13 cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities currently
operating as major sources of HAP subject to the final amendments. A
list of facilities that are currently subject to the MACT standards is
available in the memorandum titled Technical Support Document for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology
Review Proposal, available in the docket for this action (see Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0025).
2. What are the air quality impacts?
The final amendments add wastewater requirements to the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP, however the EPA does not anticipate
that the amendments to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing NESHAP will
impact air quality. We are not proposing changes to the standard that
will result in additional emission reductions beyond the levels already
achieved by the NESHAP.
3. What are the cost impacts?
The final amendments will have a limited cost impact on affected
cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities. Total estimated costs are
$47,527, based on a $3,656 per facility cost for all 13 facilities. The
costs result from reading and understanding rule requirements and
adjusting compliance plans based on the rule proposal. All costs other
than wastewater testing are one-time expenses expected to occur in the
first year after the rule is finalized. Costs are based on Agency
knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, related Information
Collection Requests (ICRs), and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
4. What are the economic impacts for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the final
requirements and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a rule.
Economic costs to owners of Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
facilities were measured in PV total costs and EAV costs. All Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing facilities were estimated to have similar
costs. All costs are presented in 2019 dollars.
PV total costs and EAV costs were measured at the 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates. The duration of analysis was 8 years. Per
facility PV total cost estimate is $3,968 at 3 percent and $3,925 at 7
percent discount rates. EAV costs per facility are measured to be $565
and $657 at the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively.
Combined total PV cost of the final requirements for all facilities is
measured to be $51,577 at 3 percent and $51,030 at 7 percent discount
rates. Combined EAV costs of the final requirements for all facilities
are measured to be $7,346 and $8,546 at the 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates, respectively.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed
an analysis to determine if any small entities would be unduly burdened
by the final amendments. No cyanide chemicals manufacturers are small
businesses based on Small Business Administration standards. No
significant economic impacts from the final amendments are anticipated
because the PV and EAV costs associated with the final revisions are
minimal.
5. What are the benefits?
As discussed in section VI.B.2 of this preamble, we do not
anticipate the finalized amendments to the NESHAP for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category to
[[Page 66119]]
impact air quality. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed
in this 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, 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.
6. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985
was signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities
through federal government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The
EPA defines EJ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing
that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In
the analysis, we also evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer
and noncancer risks from the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing major
source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities. The demographic analysis and the
risk analysis are contained in the docket and were summarized in the
proposed rule preamble.
When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from
cyanide chemical manufacturing facilities, we find that 61,653 people
nationwide are exposed to an incremental cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million with no one exposed to an excess cancer risk greater than 5-in-
1 million based upon actual or allowable emissions. Also, no people are
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that of the 61,653
people residing within 50 km of facilities in the source category whose
risk is at or above 1-in-1 million (but less than 5-in-1 million) as a
result of emissions from the source category, the percent of
individuals in three demographic groups, African American, below
poverty level, and greater than or equal to 25 years of age without a
high school diploma, are greater than the corresponding national
average percentage of people in those demographic groups. Specifically,
the population with risks greater than 1-in-1 million live in areas
where 19 percent of the population is African American compared to 12
percent nationally, 23 percent are below the poverty level \15\
compared to 14 percent nationally, and 16 percent are greater than or
equal to 25 years of age without a high school diploma compared to 14
percent nationally. Because the final amendments to the rule are not
anticipated to result in emissions reductions, implementation of the
final rule will not result in a significant increase or decrease in any
existing risk disparities for the demographic groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Table 2 of the proposed rule preamble erroneously listed
this percentage as 16 percent rather than 23 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the analyses of exposed populations described above, the
EPA determined that this action is unlikely to pose a
disproportionately high and adverse health impact on minority
populations and/or low-income populations, as specified in Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive
Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021).
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 Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the docket for
this action; (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0006).
7. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
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 assessment are documented in
the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2021 Final Rule, available in the docket for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category rule (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0532).
VII. 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 Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Section VII.B.1 presents PRA considerations related to the Carbon
Black Production NESHAP, and section VII.B.2 presents the PRA
considerations related to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP.
1. Carbon Black Production
The information collection activities in the final rule for the
Carbon Black Production source category have been submitted for
approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2677.02. A copy of the ICR is
available in the docket for the
[[Page 66120]]
Carbon Black Production source category NESHAP (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0505), and is briefly summarized here. We are finalizing
changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with
40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and
reporting requirements; broadening the initial emission limit to
include process vents located after the MUF; and including the
requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the
number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of
respondents was reduced from 18 to 15 based on consultation with
industry representatives and state and local agencies.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of carbon black
production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YY).
Estimated number of respondents: 15 facilities.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual
compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to
be 289 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over
the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 213 hours
(per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$180,928 (per year). There are no estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs. The total average annual Agency cost over the first
3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $10,247. 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
The information collection activities in the final rule have been
submitted to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2678.02. A copy of the ICR is
available in the docket for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source
category NESHAP (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532), and is briefly
summarized here.
The EPA is finalizing amendments that revise provisions pertaining
to emissions during periods of SSM, add requirements for electronic
reporting of NOCS, periodic reports, and performance test results, and
make other minor clarifications and corrections. This information will
be collected to assure compliance with the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing NESHAP. The ICR burdens for these final amendments are
summarized below.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of cyanide
chemicals manufacturing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YY).
Estimated number of respondents: 13 (assumes no new respondents
over the next 3 years).
Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
Total estimated burden: 169 hours (per year) to comply with all of
the requirements in the NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $17,108 (per year). Includes total capital
costs of $1,300 incurred in the first year ($433 per year over 3 years)
for process wastewater stream sampling to determine applicability and
compliance with the final rule amendments. There are no annualized
operation and maintenance costs to comply with under the final
amendments to the NESHAP.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities, since there
are no small entities in the affected source categories.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the carbon black production or cyanide
chemicals manufacturing production facilities that have been identified
as being affected by this proposed action are owned or operated by
tribal governments. However, we determined that one carbon black
facility and two cyanide facilities are located within 50 miles of
tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Coordination and
Consultation with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered tribal leadership the
opportunity for government-to-government consultation with no response.
In addition, the EPA held multiple outreach activities that included a
webinar and participation on tribal partnership calls.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action
[[Page 66121]]
present a disproportionate risk to children.
The health and risk assessments for the Carbon Black Production and
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source categories are discussed in
sections IV.A and V.A of this preamble. The document, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Carbon Black Production Source Category in Support
of the Risk and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule, is available in the
docket for the Carbon Black Production source category (see Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505). The document, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule, is available in the docket
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category (see Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532).
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action does not involve technical standards for the Carbon
Black Production source category.
This action does involve technical standards for the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Therefore, the EPA conducted a
search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards
(VCS). However, the Agency identified no such standards. A thorough
summary of the search and results are included in the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, which is available
in the docket for this action/source category (see Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0004).
In the final rule, the EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS
ASTM D4282-15, Standard Test Method for Determination of Free Cyanide
in Water and Wastewater by Microdiffusion and ASTM D7237-18, Standard
Test Method for Free Cyanide and Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow
Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas Diffusion Separation and
Amperometric Detection. Both methods are water and wastewater methods
for the determination of free cyanide. In ASTM D4282-15, the reactions
are carried out in a microdiffusion cell. The sample is treated with
cadmium ion to precipitate hexacyanoferrates and buffered to pH 6. The
HCN then diffuses into a sodium hydroxide solution which is
subsequently treated, and the concentration of free cyanide determined
by spectrophotometric analysis. In ASTM-7237-18, the sample is
introduced into the carrier solution of the flow injection analysis
system with a phosphate buffer solution at pH 6. The released hydrogen
cyanide gas diffuses through a hydrophobic gas diffusion membrane into
an alkaline receptor stream where the cyanide ion is captured and sent
to an amperometric flowcell detector with a silver-working electrode.
In the presence of cyanide, silver in the working electrode is oxidized
at the applied potential. The anodic current measured if proportional
to the concentration of cyanide in the sample. These methods are
reasonably available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 email: [email protected].
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this final action for both the Carbon Black
Production source category and the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
source category 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.
The documentation for this decision for the Carbon Black Production
source category is contained in the technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Carbon Black Production Facilities, available in the docket
for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0014) and
discussed in Section VI.A.6 of this final rule.
The documentation for this decision for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing is contained in the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for
this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0006) and discussed
in Section VI.B.6 of this final rule.
The EPA provided opportunities to engage with the EPA on these
proposals. The Agency offered a public hearing and also reached out to
communities in other ways, including a webinar held on February 10,
2021, to exchange information with stakeholders about these proposals.
We did not receive any requests for a public hearing and we did not
receive feedback regarding EJ during the webinar. The EPA remains
committed to engaging with communities and stakeholders throughout the
development of air pollution regulations.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report for this action to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Neither of the NESHAP amended
by this action constitute a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations 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--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(105) through (h)(117) as (h)(107)
through (h)(119);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(63) through (h)(104) as (h)(64) through
(h)(105);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (h)(63) and (h)(106);
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(63) ASTM D4282-15, Standard Test Method for Determination of Free
Cyanide in Water and Wastewater by
[[Page 66122]]
Microdiffusion, Approved July 15, 2015, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1103(g).
* * * * *
(106) ASTM D7237-18, Standard Test Method for Free Cyanide and
Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas
Diffusion Separation and Amperometric Detection, Approved December 1,
2018, IBR approved for Sec. 63.1103(g).
* * * * *
Subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable
Control Technology Standards
0
3. Section 63.1101 is amended by revising the definition for ``Process
vent'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1101 Definitions.
* * * * *
Process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or the
point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream from a
unit operation within a source category subject to this subpart.
Process vent excludes the following gas stream discharges:
(1) Relief valve discharges;
(2) Leaks from equipment subject to this subpart;
(3) Gas streams exiting a control device complying with this
subpart;
(4) Gas streams transferred to other processes (on-site or off-
site) for reaction or other use in another process (i.e., for chemical
value as a product, isolated intermediate, byproduct, or co-product for
heat value);
(5) Gas streams transferred for fuel value (i.e., net positive
heating value), use, reuse, or sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. On
or after November 19, 2021 this exclusion no longer applies to the
Carbon Black Production source category;
(6) Gas streams from storage vessels or transfer racks subject to
this subpart;
(7) Gas streams from waste management units subject to this
subpart;
(8) Gas streams from wastewater streams subject to this subpart;
(9) Gas streams exiting process analyzers; and
(10) Gas stream discharges that contain less than or equal to 0.005
weight-percent total organic HAP.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1102 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1102 Compliance schedule.
(a) General requirements. Affected sources, as defined in Sec.
63.1103(a)(1)(i) for acetyl resins production, Sec. 63.1103(b)(1)(i)
for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production, Sec. 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for
hydrogen fluoride production, Sec. 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate
production, Sec. 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production, Sec.
63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon black production, Sec. 63.1103(g)(1)(i)
for cyanide chemicals manufacturing, or Sec. 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for
spandex production shall comply with the appropriate provisions of this
subpart and the subparts referenced by this subpart YY according to the
schedule in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate,
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Affected sources
in ethylene production also must comply according to paragraph (c) of
this section. Affected sources in cyanide chemicals manufacturing also
must comply according to paragraph (d) of this section. Affected
sources in carbon black production also must comply according to
paragraph (e) of this section. Proposal and effective dates are
specified in table 1 to this section and in paragraph (d) for cyanide
chemicals manufacturing affected sources and paragraph (e) for carbon
black production affected sources of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing. (1) If applicable, all cyanide
chemicals manufacturing affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 15, 2021, must be in compliance
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section upon initial startup or November 20, 2022, whichever is later.
If applicable, all cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 15, 2021,
must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section upon initial startup, or November
19, 2021, whichever is later.
(i) Requirements specified in Table 9 to Sec. 63.1103(g), table
entry (f)(1)(ii), for new cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units
that generate process wastewater.
(ii) Requirements specified in Table 9 to Sec. 63.1103(g), table
entry (g), for existing cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units
that generate process wastewater.
(2) All cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before January 15, 2021,
must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section upon initial startup or May 18,
2022, whichever is later. All cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 15,
2021, must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section upon initial startup, or
November 19, 2021, whichever is later.
(i) The exceptions specified in Sec. 63.1103(g)(6) related to 40
part 63, subparts SS, TT, and UU startup, shutdown, and malfunction
requirements.
(ii) The compliance requirements specified in Sec.
63.1108(a)(4)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
(iii) The electronic reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.1110(a)(10).
(e) Carbon black production. (1) If applicable, all carbon black
production affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be in compliance
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of
this section upon initial startup or November 20, 2022, whichever is
later. If applicable, all carbon black production affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must
be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section upon initial startup, or November 19,
2021, whichever is later.
(i) The process vent applicability determination requirements
specified in Sec. 63.1103(f)(3)(iv).
(ii) The performance test frequency requirements specified in Sec.
63.1108(b)(4)(ii).
(iii) The boiler and process heater tune up requirements specified
in Sec. 63.1103(f)(3)(iii).
(2) All carbon black production affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be
in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section upon initial startup or May 18, 2022,
whichever is later. All carbon black production affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must
be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section upon initial startup, or November 19,
2021, whichever is later.
[[Page 66123]]
(i) The exceptions specified in Sec. 63.1103(f)(4) related to 40
part 63, subpart SS, startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements.
(ii) The exception specified in Sec. 63.1103(f)(5) related to the
requirement that a closed vent system route the collected vapors to a
control device when demonstrating compliance.
(iii) The compliance requirements specified in Sec.
63.1108(a)(4)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
(iv) The electronic reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.1110(a)(10).
(3) All carbon black production affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be
in compliance with the requirements specified in line entry (b) in
Table 8 to Sec. 63.1103(f) on or before November 19, 2024. All carbon
black production affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must be in compliance with the
requirements specified in line entries (b) and (c) in Table 8 to Sec.
63.1103(f) upon initial startup or November 19, 2021, whichever is
later.
0
5. Section 63.1103 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (f)(3)(i) and adding paragraphs (f)(3)(iii)
through (v).
0
b. Adding entries (b) and (c) to table 8 to Sec. 63.1103(f).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (f)(4) and (5).
0
d. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii).
0
e. In paragraph (g)(2) adding the definition for ``free cyanide'' in
alphabetical order.
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(3).
0
g. Adding paragraph (g)(5)(vi).
0
h. Adding paragraph (g)(6).
0
i. In table 9 to Sec. 63.1103(g), revising entries (f) through (i) and
adding entry (j).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1103 Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and
requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Table 8 to this section specifies the carbon black production
standards applicability for existing and new sources. Applicability
assessment procedures and methods are specified in Sec. 63.1104. An
owner or operator of an affected source is not required to perform
applicability tests or other applicability assessment procedures if
they opt to comply with the most stringent requirements for an
applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart. General compliance,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are specified in Sec. Sec.
63.1108 through 63.1112. Before May 18, 2022, minimization of emissions
from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must be addressed in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.1111; the
plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such events. A
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required on and after
May 18, 2022 and the requirements specified in Sec. 63.1111 no longer
apply; however, for historical compliance purposes, a copy of the plan
must be retained and available on-site for 5 years after May 18, 2022.
Procedures for approval of alternative means of emission limitations
are specified in Sec. 63.1113.
* * * * *
(iii) The boiler and process heater tune up requirements of
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii)(A) through (F) of this section apply beginning
no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for
carbon black production affected sources and as specified in Table 8 to
Sec. 63.1103(f), line entry (c).
(A) Inspect the combustion device for damage, wear, and buildup of
material that could impact effectiveness, and clean or replace any
components of the burner as necessary. Units that produce electricity
for sale may delay the combustion device inspection until the first
outage after the annual inspection is required, not to exceed 36 months
from the previous inspection. At units where entry into a piece of
process equipment or into a storage vessel is required to complete the
tune-up inspections, inspections are required only during planned
entries into the storage vessel or process equipment;
(B) When possible based upon the configuration of the burner,
inspect the flame pattern and adjust the burner if needed to optimize
the flame pattern. If manufacturer's specifications for an optimized
flame pattern are available, the adjustment should be consistent with
the manufacturer's specifications;
(C) Inspect the system controlling the air-to-fuel ratio, and
ensure that it is functioning properly. For any calibrated components
ensure that it is correctly calibrated The annual inspection may be
delayed until the next scheduled unit shutdown. Units that produce
electricity for sale may delay the inspection until the first outage
after the annual inspection is required, not to exceed 36 months from
the previous inspection;
(D) Optimize total emissions of CO. If manufacturer's
specifications for optimization are available, this optimization should
be consistent with the manufacturer's specifications and with any
NOX requirement to which the unit is subject. If no
manufacturer's specifications are available, the inspection and
cleaning procedures of paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) fulfill the obligations
of this paragraph;
(E) Measure the concentrations in the effluent stream of CO in
parts per million, by volume, and oxygen in volume percent, before and
after the adjustments are made. Measurements may be taken using a
portable CO analyzer and may be either on a dry or wet basis, as long
as it is the same basis before and after the adjustments are made. If
adjustments are not or cannot be made, make the measurements before and
after the inspection and cleaning procedures specified in paragraph
(f)(3)(iii)(A); and
(F) Maintain on-site and submit, if requested by the Administrator,
a report containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3)(iii)(F)(1)
through (3) of this section,
(1) The concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in parts per
million by volume, and oxygen in volume percent, measured at high fire
or typical operating load, before and after the tune-up of the boiler
or process heater;
(2) A description of any corrective actions taken as a part of the
tune-up; and
(3) The type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to
the tune-up, but only if the unit was physically and legally capable of
using more than one type of fuel during that period. Units sharing a
fuel meter may estimate the fuel used by each unit.
(iv) When determining the applicability of the carbon black
production process vent requirements specified in line entry (b) to
Table 8 to Sec. 63.1103(f), an owner or operator is required to
determine the HAP concentration of the process vent streams, at a
minimum, as specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(iv)(A) through (D) of this
section.
(A) As an alternative to testing all carbon black production
process carbon black or product vent streams after the main unit filter
to determine applicability, an owner or operator has the option of
testing the first carbon black production process or product vent
stream after the main unit filter. If the concentration of the emission
stream is less than 260 parts per million by volume as determined by
the process vent applicability determination requirements specified in
Sec. 63.1103(f)(3)(iv), then all process vents after the main unit
filter and before the dryer are deemed to be in compliance and are not
subject to the emission limits in Table 8 below.
(B) As an alternative to testing all carbon black production
process carbon
[[Page 66124]]
black or product vent streams after the dryer to determine
applicability, an owner or operator has the option of testing the first
carbon black production process carbon black or product vent stream
after the dryer. If the concentration of the emission stream is less
than 260 parts per million by volume as determined by the process vent
applicability determination requirements specified in Sec.
63.1103(f)(3)(iv), then all process vents after the dryer are deemed to
be in compliance and are not subject to the emission limits in Table 8
below.
(C) Report the results of the applicability assessment according to
paragraph Sec. 63.1110(a)(10)(i).
(D) A test meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.1104(e) conducted
after November 18, 2016 and where no process changes have occurred
since the test that may affect emissions, may be submitted according to
Sec. 63.1110(a)(10)(i)(A) through (C) in lieu of performing a new
applicability determination.
(v) When determining the applicability of the carbon black
production main unit filter process vent requirements specified in line
entry (a) to Table 8 to Sec. 63.1103(f), an owner or operator is
required to determine the HAP concentration of the main unit filter
process vent streams. Beginning November 19, 2021, report the results
of any applicability assessment conducted after November 19, 2021, the
applicability assessment according to paragraph Sec.
63.1110(a)(10)(i).
Table 8 to Sec. 63.1103(f)--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate a Carbon Black Production Existing or
New Affected Source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(b) A carbon black production (1) The HAP concentration of the Beginning no later than the
process vent not subject to line emission stream is equal to or compliance dates specified in Sec.
entry (a) of this table. greater than 260 parts per million 63.1102(e):
by volume \a\ as determined by the (i) Reduce emissions of HAP by using
process vent applicability a flare meeting the requirements of
determination requirements specified subpart SS of this part; or
in Sec. 63.1103(f)(3)(iv). (ii) Reduce emissions of total HAP
by 98 weight-percent or to a
concentration of 20 parts per
million by volume, whichever is
less stringent, by venting
emissions through a closed vent
system to any combination of
control devices meeting the
requirements of Sec.
63.982(a)(2).
(c) A carbon black production (1) The process vent complies by (i) Beginning no later than the
process vent subject to (a) or (b) routing emissions to a boiler/ compliance dates specified in Sec.
above. process heater for use as fuel gas. 63.1102(e), conduct annual tune up
requirements as specified in Sec.
63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1104(e).
* * * * *
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1102(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(i)
through (xiii) of this section do not apply when demonstrating
compliance with paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(i) 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(equipment and operating requirements for fuel
gas systems and processes requirements).
(ii) 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 (nonflare control device equipment and
operating requirements).
(iii) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or
malfunctions'' in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS (halogen
scrubber and other halogen reduction device monitoring requirements).
(iv) Section 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS (operation and
maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems) ``(ii) If under
the referencing subpart, an owner or operator has developed a start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the plan is followed, and the CPMS is
repaired immediately, this action shall be recorded as specified in
Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(E).''
(v) The last sentence of Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) (performance test
procedures) of subpart SS (general procedures for continuous unit
operations): ``Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the
purpose of a performance test.''
(vi) Section 63.998(b)(2)(iii) (excluded data) of subpart SS:
``(iii) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, if the owner or operator
operates the source during such periods in accordance with Sec.
63.1111(a) and maintains the records specified in paragraph (d)(3) of
this section.''
(vii) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) (alternative
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(viii) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(B)(3) (alternate
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(ix) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) (alternate recordkeeping)
of subpart SS.
(x) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(ii)(C) (alternate recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(xi) The phrase ``except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) and
(B) of this section'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(i) (alternative
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(xii) The second sentence of Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii) (alternative
recordkeeping) of subpart SS. ``If a source has developed a startup,
shutdown and malfunction plan, and a monitored parameter is outside its
established range or monitoring data are not collected during periods
of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (and the source is operated
during such periods in accordance with Sec. 63.1111(a)) or during
periods of nonoperation of the process unit or portion thereof
(resulting in cessation of the emissions to which monitoring applies),
then the excursion is not a violation and, in cases where continuous
monitoring is required, the excursion does not count as the excused
excursion for determining compliance.''
(xiii) Section 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) (nonflare control
and
[[Page 66125]]
recovery device regulated source monitoring records) of subpart SS.
(xiv) Section 63.998(d)(3) (regulated source and control equipment
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction records) of subpart SS.
(5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1102(e), the provisions specified in Sec. 63.983(a)(1) of subpart
SS that each closed vent system shall be designed and operated to
collect the regulated material vapors from the emission point shall
apply at all times, with the following exception: The closed vent
system to the control device may be bypassed during startup or shutdown
of a reactor when the excess oxygen concentration in the closed vent
system is greater than or equal to 3 percent. Startup and shutdown of a
reactor must be completed as expeditiously as possible, and in fewer
than 15 minutes whenever possible. In no case shall the time period
allowed be permitted to exceed 15 minutes. The bypass of the control
device must use one of the methods specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i)
through (ii):
(i) Calculated Purge Duration Method: Each facility must calculate
the purge duration of their closed vent system by evaluating the volume
of the closed vent system and the flowrate of the contents of the
closed vent system from the reactor to the common tail gas header.
Additionally, each facility must calculate the amount of time it takes
to open and/or close the common tail gas header and open and/or close
the main unit filter vent to maintain constant pressure. The time
required to completely purge the closed vent system is added to the
time required to open and close the associated vents along with a
safety factor that accounts for the physical and technological
constraints of the facility, to determine the total calculated purge
duration in minutes.
(ii) Oxygen Sensors: Facilities may use oxygen sensors located
within the closed vent system to determine when the oxygen level falls
below 3 percent.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the affected
source, as defined in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section, is specified
in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) * * *
Free cyanide means chemical species of cyanide that are dissolved
in water and are bioavailable and known for their toxic effects on
living organisms. This refers to the sum of molecular hydrogen cyanide
(HCN) and cyanide ion (CN\-\) dissolved in water. Included in this
definition are the dissolved products of cyanide salts (including
potassium cyanide [KCN] and sodium cyanide [NaCN]), as these salts
dissociate to cyanide ion and hydrogen cyanide when added to water.
* * * * *
(3) Requirements. Table 9 to this section specifies the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing standards applicable to existing and new
sources. Applicability assessment procedures and methods are specified
in Sec. 63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not
required to perform applicability tests or other applicability
assessment procedures if they opt to comply with the most stringent
requirements for an applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart.
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Before May 18, 2022,
minimization of emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must
be addressed in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by
Sec. 63.1111; the plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping
of such events. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not
required on and after May 18, 2022 and the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.1111 no longer apply; however, for historical compliance
purposes, a copy of the plan must be retained and available on-site for
5 years after May 18, 2022. Procedures for approval of alternative
means of emission limitations are specified in Sec. 63.1113.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(vi) For compliance with the wastewater free cyanide analysis
provisions of table 9 to Sec. 63.1103(g), free cyanide is to be
measured according to ASTM D4282-15 or ASTM D7237-18 (both incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(6) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction referenced provisions.
Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1102(d), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(i)
through (xxiii) of this section do not apply when demonstrating
compliance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(i) The second/last sentence of Sec. 63.983(a)(5) (requirements
for pressure relief devices in a transfer rack's closed vent system
requirements) of subpart SS: ``Pressure relief devices needed for
safety purposes are not subject to this paragraph.''
(ii) 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 (equipment and operating requirements for fuel
gas systems and processes requirements).
(iii) 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 (nonflare control device equipment and
operating requirements).
(iv) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or
malfunctions'' in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS (halogen
scrubber and other halogen reduction device monitoring requirements).
(v) Section 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS (operation and
maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems) ``(ii) If under
the referencing subpart, an owner or operator has developed a start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the plan is followed, and the CPMS is
repaired immediately, this action shall be recorded as specified in
Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(E).''
(vi) The last sentence of Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) (performance test
procedures) of subpart SS (general procedures for continuous unit
operations): ``Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the
purpose of a performance test.''
(vii) Section 63.998(b)(2)(iii) (excluded data) of subpart SS:
``(iii) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, if the owner or operator
operates the source during such periods in accordance with Sec.
63.1111(a) and maintains the records specified in paragraph (d)(3) of
this section.''
(viii) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) (alternative
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(ix) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(B)(3) (alternate recordkeeping) of subpart
SS.
(x) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) (alternate recordkeeping)
of subpart SS.
(xi) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(ii)(C) (alternate recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(xii) The phrase ``except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(i) (alternative
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
(xiii) The second sentence of Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii) (alternative
recordkeeping) of subpart SS. ``If a source has developed a startup,
shutdown and malfunction plan, and a monitored parameter is outside its
[[Page 66126]]
established range or monitoring data are not collected during periods
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (and the source is operated during
such periods in accordance with Sec. 63.1111(a)) or during periods of
nonoperation of the process unit or portion thereof (resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which monitoring applies), then the
excursion is not a violation and, in cases where continuous monitoring
is required, the excursion does not count as the excused excursion for
determining compliance.''
(xiv) Section 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) (nonflare control and
recovery device regulated source monitoring records) of subpart SS.
(xv) Section 63.998(d)(3) (regulated source and control equipment
start-up, shutdown and malfunction records) of subpart SS.
(xvi) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart
for the source, or'' from Sec. 63.1005(e)(4)(i) (leak repair records
written procedures) of subpart TT.
(xvii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A) (dual mechanical seal
system special provisions for pumps) of subpart TT.
(xviii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A) (dual mechanical seal
system special provisions for agitators) of subpart TT.
(xix) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1012(b)(1) (compressor seal system
standard) of subpart TT.
(xx) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the
source, or'' from Sec. 63.1024(f)(4)(i) (leak repair records written
procedures) of subpart UU.
(xxi) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) (dual mechanical seal
system special provisions for pumps) of subpart UU.
(xxii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) (dual mechanical seal
system special provisions for agitators of subpart UU.
(xxiii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1031(b)(1) (compressor seal system
standard) of subpart UU.
Table 9 to Sec. 63.1103(g)--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate a Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Existing or New Affected Source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(f) A new cyanide chemicals (1) The process wastewater is from (i) Achieve a combined removal and
manufacturing process unit that HCN purification, ammonia control of HAP from wastewater of
generates process wastewater. purification, or flare blowdown. 93 weight-percent; and
(ii) Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1102(d), waste management units
upstream of an open or closed
biological treatment process shall
meet the requirements of Sec.
63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of
subpart G of this part, as
applicable.
(g) An existing cyanide chemicals (1) The process wastewater stream is (i) Beginning no later than the
manufacturing process unit that from HCN purification, ammonia compliance dates specified in Sec.
generates process wastewater. purification, or flare blowdown; and. 63.1102(d), comply with the
(2) the total annual average requirements of Sec.
concentration of Table 9 of 40 CFR 63.138(a)(1).
part 63, subpart G compounds (Table (ii) For compliance options and
9 compounds) and free cyanide calculations requiring an Fr value
measured according to Sec. under Sec. 63.138(a)(1); owners
63.1103(g)(5)(vi) from each process and operators may use a value of
wastewater stream are greater or 0.93 for free cyanide.
equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flow
rate, or the total annual average
concentration of Table 9 compounds
and free cyanide from each process
wastewater stream are greater or
equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual
average flow rate is greater or
equal to 10 liters per minute,
according to the procedures in Sec.
63.144(a).
(h) A cyanide chemicals (1) The maintenance wastewater (i) Comply with the requirements of
manufacturing process unit that contains hydrogen cyanide or Sec. 63.1106(b).
generates maintenance wastewater. acetonitrile.
(i) An item of equipment listed in (1) The item of equipment meets the (i) Comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.1106(c)(1) that criteria specified in Sec. Table 35 of subpart G of this part.
transports or contains wastewater 63.1106(c)(1) through (3) and either
liquid streams from a cyanide (c)(4)(i) or (ii).
chemicals manufacturing process
unit.
(j) Equipment, as defined under (1) The equipment contains or (i) Comply with either subpart TT or
Sec. 63.1101. contacts hydrogen cyanide and UU of this part, and paragraph
operates equal to or greater than (g)(5) of this section, with the
300 hours per year. exception that open-ended lines
that contain or contact hydrogen
cyanide are exempt from any
requirements to install a cap,
plug, blind flange, or second valve
to be capped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Section 63.1104 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1104 Process vents from continuous unit operations:
applicability assessment procedures and methods.
* * * * *
(c) Applicability assessment requirements. The TOC or organic HAP
concentrations, process vent volumetric flow rates, process vent
heating values,
[[Page 66127]]
process vent TOC or organic HAP emission rates, halogenated process
vent determinations, process vent TRE index values, and engineering
assessments for process vent control applicability assessment
requirements are to be determined during maximum representative
operating conditions for the process, except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, or unless the Administrator specifies or approves
alternate operating conditions. For acrylic and modacrylic fiber
production affected sources, carbon black production affected sources,
cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, polycarbonate
production affected sources, and ethylene production affected sources,
operations during periods of malfunction shall not constitute
representative conditions for the purpose of an applicability test. For
all other affected sources, operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative
conditions for the purpose of an applicability test.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1108 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(4)(i).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2) introductory text, and
paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1108 Compliance with standards and operation and maintenance
requirements.
(a) Requirements. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and
(5) of this section apply to all affected sources except acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate
production affected sources, and beginning no later than the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected
sources, specified in Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals
manufacturing affected sources, and specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for
carbon black production affected sources. The requirements of paragraph
(a)(4) of this section apply only to acrylic and modacrylic fiber
production affected sources, polycarbonate production affected sources
and beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in Sec.
63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and
specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected
sources. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(3), (6), and (7) of this
section apply to all affected sources.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources
and polycarbonate production affected sources, and beginning no later
than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene
production affected sources, specified in Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide
chemicals manufacturing, and specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for carbon
black production affected sources, the emission limitations and
established parameter ranges of this part shall apply at all times
except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. Equipment leak requirements shall apply at
all times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source
(or specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and
depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
equipment leak requirements apply.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Excused excursions are not allowed for acrylic and modacrylic
fiber production affected sources, polycarbonate production affected
sources, and beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in
Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources,
and specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected
sources. For all other affected sources, including ethylene production,
cyanide chemicals manufacturing, and carbon black production affected
sources, prior to the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c)
through (e), an excused excursion, as described in Sec.
63.998(b)(6)(ii), is not a violation.
(2)Parameter monitoring: Excursions. An excursion is not a
violation in cases where continuous monitoring is required and the
excursion does not count toward the number of excused excursions (as
described in Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii)), if the conditions of paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section are met, except that the conditions
of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section do not apply for acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources, polycarbonate production
affected sources, and beginning no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources,
specified in Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing
affected sources, and specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for carbon black
production affected sources. Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to allow or excuse a monitoring parameter excursion caused by
any activity that violates other applicable provisions of this subpart
or a subpart referenced by this subpart.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The Administrator may determine compliance with emission
limitations of this subpart based on, but not limited to, the results
of performance tests conducted according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.997, unless otherwise specified in this subpart or a subpart
referenced by this subpart. For carbon black production affected
sources, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1102(e), in addition to initial performance test requirements
to demonstrate compliance with process vent requirements, subsequent
performance tests are required no later than 60 months after the
preceding performance test in accordance with the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.997(e) for initial performance tests.
(B) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources,
polycarbonate production affected sources, and beginning no later than
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene
production affected sources, specified in Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide
chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and specified in Sec.
63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected sources, performance
tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator
specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by
the Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may
not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner
or operator 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, the owner or operator shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.1110 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
[[Page 66128]]
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(10)(i) introductory text,
(a)(10)(i)(A) through (C), and (a)(10)(ii).
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1110 Reporting requirements.
(a) Required reports. Each owner or operator of an affected source
subject to this subpart shall submit the reports listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (8) of this section, as applicable. Each owner or
operator of an acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected source
or polycarbonate production affected source subject to this subpart
shall also submit the reports listed in paragraph (a)(9) of this
section in addition to the reports listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(8) of this section, as applicable. Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) for ethylene production
affected sources, specified in Sec. 63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals
manufacturing affected sources, and specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for
carbon black production affected sources, each owner or operator of an
ethylene production affected source, cyanide chemicals manufacturing
affected source, and carbon black production affected source subject to
this subpart shall also submit the reports listed in paragraph (a)(10)
of this section in addition to the reports listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (8) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
(7) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports described in Sec.
63.1111 (except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected
sources, carbon black production affected sources, cyanide chemicals
manufacturing affected sources, ethylene production affected sources,
and polycarbonate production affected sources).
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(i) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in Sec.
63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and
specified in Sec. 63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected
sources, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart or applicability assessment required by
Sec. 63.1103(f)(3)(iv), the owner or operator must submit the results
of the performance test or applicability assessment following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(10)(i)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) 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 or applicability assessment 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.
(B) 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 or applicability assessment 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.
(C) CBI. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI.
Anything submitted to CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do
not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if an owner or operator
wishes to assert a CBI claim for some of the information submitted
under paragraph (a)(10)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, then the owner or
operator must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as
described in paragraphs (a)(10)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. All CBI
claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under
CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential
treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions data available to
the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will
be made publicly available.
(ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1102(c) through (e), the owner or operator must submit all
subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports required under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section in PDF format to the EPA via CEDRI,
which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). All
subsequent Periodic Reports required under paragraph (a)(5) of this
section must be submitted to the EPA via CEDRI using the appropriate
electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102(c) through (e) or once the
report template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year,
whichever date is later. The date report templates become available
will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by
the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in
which the report is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim, then submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
Periodic Reports must be generated using the appropriate template on
the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Road, Durham NC 27703 to the
attention of the applicable person specified in paragraphs (A) through
(C) of this section. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(A) Ethylene Production Sector Lead
(B) Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Sector Lead
(C) Carbon Black Production Sector Lead
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Due date.The owner or operator shall submit the Notification of
Compliance Status for each affected source 240 days after the
compliance date specified for the affected source under this subpart,
or 60 days after completion of the initial performance
[[Page 66129]]
test or initial compliance assessment/subsequent required performance
test or subsequent compliance assessment, whichever is earlier.
Notification of Compliance Status reports may be combined for multiple
affected sources as long as the due date requirements for all sources
covered in the combined report are met.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.1111 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (b) introductory text, and (c) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1111 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Before May 18, 2022,
the requirements of this paragraph (a) apply to all affected sources
except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources and
polycarbonate production affected sources. On and after May 18, 2022,
the requirements of this paragraph (a) apply to all affected sources
except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources,
carbon black production affected sources, cyanide chemicals
manufacturing affected sources, and polycarbonate production affected
sources. On and after July 6, 2023, the requirements of this paragraph
(a) apply to all affected sources except for acrylic and modacrylic
fiber production affected sources, carbon black production affected
sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, ethylene
production affected sources, and polycarbonate production affected
sources.
* * * * *
(b) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reporting requirements.
Before May 18, 2022, the requirements of this paragraph (b) apply to
all affected sources except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production
affected sources and polycarbonate production affected sources. On and
after May 18, 2022, the requirements of this paragraph (b) apply to all
affected sources except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production
affected sources, carbon black production affected sources, cyanide
chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and polycarbonate production
affected sources. On and after July 6, 2023, the requirements of this
paragraph (b) apply to all affected sources except for acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources, carbon black production
affected sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources,
ethylene production affected sources, and polycarbonate production
affected sources.
* * * * *
(c) Malfunction recordkeeping and reporting. Before May 18, 2022,
the requirements of this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate
production affected sources. On and after May 18, 2022, the
requirements of this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and modacrylic
fiber production affected sources, carbon black production affected
sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and
polycarbonate production affected sources. On and after July 6, 2023,
the requirements of this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources, carbon black production
affected sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources,
ethylene production affected sources, and polycarbonate production
affected sources.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-24204 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P