[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7942-7991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00685]
[[Page 7941]]
Vol. 90
Wednesday,
No. 13
January 22, 2025
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 13 / Wednesday, January 22, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7942]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303; FRL-7623-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU73
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
establish a new area source category to address chemical manufacturing
process units (CMPUs) using ethylene oxide (EtO). The EPA is proposing
to list EtO in table 1 to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources
(referred to as the CMAS NESHAP in this document) and to add EtO-
specific requirements to the CMAS NESHAP. The EPA is also proposing to
add a fenceline monitoring program for EtO. In addition, the EPA is
proposing new requirements for pressure vessels and pressure relief
devices (PRDs). This proposal also presents the results of the EPA's
technology review of the CMAS NESHAP as required under the Clean Air
Act (CAA). As part of this technology review, the EPA is proposing to
add new leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements to the CMAS
NESHAP for equipment leaks in organic HAP service and heat exchange
systems. The EPA is also proposing performance testing once every 5
years and to add provisions for electronic reporting. We estimate that
the proposed amendments to the CMAS NESHAP, excluding the proposed EtO
emission standards, would reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from emission sources by approximately 158 tons per year
(tpy). Additionally, the proposed EtO emission standards are expected
to reduce EtO emissions by approximately 4.6 tpy.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2025.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before February 21, 2025.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before January 27, 2025 we will hold a virtual public hearing.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2024-0303, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2024-0303 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2024-0303.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. William Gallagher, Mail Drop: E143-
01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2336; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Participation in virtual public hearing. To
request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing team at
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If requested,
the hearing will be held via virtual platform. The EPA will announce
the date of the hearing and further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards. The hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m.
Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close
a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has
testified if there are no additional speakers.
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no
later than 1 business day after a request has been received. To
register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online
registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by
email at [email protected]. The last day to pre-register to
speak at the hearing will be February 3, 2025. Prior to the hearing,
the EPA will post a general agenda that will list pre-registered
speakers at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth
above, please monitor these websites or contact the public hearing team
at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine
if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or a special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by January
29, 2025. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303. All
[[Page 7943]]
documents in the docket are listed in https://www.regulations.gov/.
Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. With the exception of such
material, publicly available docket materials are available
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2024-0303. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statue. This type of information should be
submitted as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID.
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the
email address [email protected] and, as described above, should include
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it
to the following address: U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS Document Control
Officer, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055,
RTP, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-
0303. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly
marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. 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:
ACC American Chemistry Council
ACS American Community Survey
ADAF age-dependent adjustment factor
AFPM American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers
APCD air pollution control device
API American Petroleum Institute
AVO audio, visual, and olfactory
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMAS Chemical Manufacturing Area Source(s)
CMPU chemical manufacturing process unit
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
EAV equivalent annualized value
EFR external floating roof
EIS Emissions Inventory System
EJ environmental justice
EMACT Ethylene Production MACT
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
EtO ethylene oxide
FID flame ionization detector
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technologies
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
HRVOC highly reactive volatile organic compound
ICR information collection request
IFR internal floating roof
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer(s)
kPa kilopascal(s)
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb pound(s)
lb/yr pound(s) per year
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
MTVP maximum true vapor pressure
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOX nitrogen oxides
N2O nitrous oxide
[[Page 7944]]
NPRA National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
NSPS new source performance standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution
OMB Office of Management and Budget
P&R I Group I Polymers and Resins
PDF portable document format
PEPO Polyether Polyols Production
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5
PMPU polyether polyol manufacturing process unit
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
PV present value
RACT reasonably available control technology
RDL representative detection limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR risk and technology review
SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TOC total organic compounds
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRE total resource effectiveness
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
[micro]g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the source categories and how does the current
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
E. What are the results of the EPA's risk assessment?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we determine GACT?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are our proposed decisions regarding standards
representing GACT for EtO emissions from CMAS, and what is the
rationale for those decisions?
B. What are our other proposed decisions regarding GACT
standards for CMAS, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
D. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for those actions?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source categories that are the subject of this proposal are
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Chemical
Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate
Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial
Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing,
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and
Resins Manufacturing, Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber
Manufacturing, regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. The
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the
chemical manufacturing operations at any of the ten chemical
manufacturing area source (CMAS) categories is 325. This list of
categories and NAICS codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed
action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated,
will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state,
local, and Tribal government entities would not be affected by this
proposed action. We listed Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production,
Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic
Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, and
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing as area source categories under CAA
section 112(c)(3) as part of the 1999 Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy (64 FR 38721, July 19, 1999). On June 26, 2002, we amended the
area source category list by adding source categories, including
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing, and Pharmaceutical Production (67 FR
43112, 43113). On November 22, 2002, we added Inorganic Pigments
Manufacturing to the area source category list (67 FR 70427, 70428). In
this action, we are proposing to amend the area source category list by
adding Chemical Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide (see section II.A.1
of this preamble). The other nine CMAS categories are discussed further
in section II.B of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4), a summary of this rulemaking may be found at https://www.regulations.gov/, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will
post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical
documents at this same website.
A memorandum showing the edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV) proposed in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303). Following signature by the EPA
Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of this document to
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-
manufacturing-
[[Page 7945]]
area-sources-national-emission-standards.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Several CAA
sections are relevant to this action as they specifically address
regulations of HAP emissions from area sources. Collectively, CAA
sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source
Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which provides the
framework for regulation of area sources under CAA section 112. Section
112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at least 30 HAP
that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas with a
primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence
attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As discussed in
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, 38715, July 19,
1999), the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose
the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are
commonly referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.'' CAA section 112(c)(3), in
turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories
of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of
the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. The EPA
implemented these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy by identifying and setting standards for categories of area
sources including the original nine CMAS categories that are addressed
in this action. This proposed action presents the required CAA
112(d)(6) technology review of the generally available control
technology (GACT) standards that the EPA established in 2009 \1\ for
the nine CMAS categories. In this action, we are also proposing to set
additional GACT standards for these categories. In addition to the
source categories and subcategories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3), CAA section 112(c)(5) provides the EPA discretion to
establish additional categories and subcategories of sources for
regulation if a threat of adverse effects to human health or the
environment is identified, per the criteria set forth in CAA section
112(c)(1) and (3). Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), and consistent
with the requirements of CAA section 112(c)(3), this action also
proposes for regulation as part of the CMAS NESHAP a new area source
category, Chemical Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide, and proposes GACT
standards for that new source category pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(5). Information about establishing a new area source category
for regulation pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (5), setting GACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(5), and reviewing standards under
CAA section 112(d)(6) are provided in sections II.A.1, II.A.2, and
II.A.3 of this preamble, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 74 FR 56008, October 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Listing An Additional Category Under CAA Section 112(c)(5)
CAA section 112(c)(5) provides that ``the Administrator may at any
time list additional categories and subcategories of sources of
hazardous air pollutants according to the same criteria for listing
applicable under [CAA section 112(c)(1) and (3)].'' CAA 112(c)(3), in
turn, provides in part that ``[t]he Administrator shall list . . . each
category or subcategory of area sources which the Administrator finds
presents a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment
(by such sources individually or in the aggregate) warranting
regulation under this section.''
In 2016, the EPA updated the integrated risk information system
(IRIS) value for EtO to reflect new science related to the
pollutant.\2\ The updated IRIS value indicates that EtO is far more
carcinogenic than previously understood. In response to this update,
the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report in 2021
using data from the 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
identifying facilities that could present lifetime cancer risks to the
public greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million.\3\ Several of these
facilities were area source chemical manufacturers. Based on the
revised carcinogenicity of EtO, the EPA decided to assess whether EtO
emissions from CMAS should be listed as an area source category
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The review is available at https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/1025tr.pdf.
\3\ The report is available at https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/_epaoig_20210506-21-p-0129.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EtO is not one of the fifteen urban HAP currently regulated by the
CMAS NESHAP. Therefore, to fully assess whether a source category
including EtO emissions from area source chemical manufacturing
operations presents an adverse effect to human health or the
environment, facilities not currently part of the nine regulated source
categories were considered. To that end, we conducted a risk assessment
evaluating all reported HAP emissions from sources currently subject to
the CMAS NESHAP as well as sources that we believe would become subject
to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO were to be added to table 1 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart VVVVVV. The results of the risk assessment are summarized
in section II.E of this preamble. Based on the assessment, seven area
source chemical manufacturing facilities were estimated to have maximum
cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million, all of which were driven
primarily (greater than 90 percent) by EtO emissions.\4\ The maximum
individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) posed by the evaluated sources
is 800-in-1 million, driven by EtO emissions from process vents (97
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For additional details on these facilities, please see the
document titled Risk Assessment for the Chemical Manufacturing Area
Source (CMAS) Categories in Support of the 2025 Technology Review
for the Proposed Rule in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these estimates of risk, we propose that an area source
category associated with EtO emissions from area source chemical
manufacturers presents a threat of adverse effect on human health.
Accordingly, consistent with CAA section 112(c)(3) and (5), we are
proposing to list a new area source category. This area source
category, Chemical Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide, would encompass
processes that produce a material or family of materials described by
NAICS code 325 where EtO is used as a feedstock, generated as a
byproduct, or is the material produced. This proposed source category
matches the scope of the nine source categories currently regulated by
the CMAS NESHAP, as described in section II.B of this preamble. Since
the existing CMAS NESHAP currently regulates these nine area source
categories collectively, we are proposing to also regulate the new
Chemical Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide area source category under
the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. Alongside the
listing of this new area source category, the EPA is proposing to add
EtO specific applicability requirements at 40 CFR 63.11494(a)(2)(v) and
to list EtO in table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV.
In conjunction with proposing to establish a new area source
category for Chemical Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide, the EPA must
establish the level of control for the source category. Section II.A.2
provides details on our authority to establish GACT standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(5) in lieu of maximum achievable control
[[Page 7946]]
technology (MACT) standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3).
2. Alternative Standards for Area Sources Under CAA Section 112(d)(5)
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA may elect to promulgate
standards or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use
of generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT or management practices is found in the
Senate report on the legislation (Senate report Number 101-228,
December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as ``. . . methods, practices
and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for
application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts
and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the
emissions control systems.''
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT. Determining what constitutes GACT
involves considering the control technologies and management practices
that are generally available to the area sources in the source
category. As previously mentioned, GACT standards were set for the CMAS
categories in 2009. These GACT standards are discussed in section IV.C
of this preamble. See section II.B of this preamble for details about
each of the nine currently regulated CMAS categories.
In this action, we are proposing to set additional GACT standards
for the CMAS categories that would apply to certain emission sources
(i.e., equipment leaks, heat exchange systems, process vents, storage
tanks, wastewater, and transfer operations) associated with the
proposed area source category, Chemical Manufacturing with Ethylene
Oxide. In addition, we are proposing to set GACT standards for pressure
vessels and PRDs. The proposed GACT standards are discussed in sections
IV.A and IV.B of this preamble. In setting GACT, we always look to the
standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to
determine if the control technologies and management practices are
transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for
the area source category at issue. In this case, the control
technologies and management practices for process units are
transferable because process units at major source chemical
manufacturing facilities are essentially no different than process
units at area source chemical manufacturing facilities excepting that
the former exceeds the major source HAP thresholds with respect to
emissions and the latter does not. Finally, as we have already noted,
in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider
the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and
management practices on that category.
GACT differs from MACT in that cost can be considered in the first
instance when establishing a GACT standard. By contrast, when
establishing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3), the EPA
must determine the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources (or average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for existing
sources with fewer than 30 sources) and the emission limitation
achieved by the best controlled similar source for new sources, without
regard to cost.
As explained in greater detail in sections IV.A and IV.B of this
preamble, we determined that the GACT standards we are proposing for
sources emitting EtO (i.e., GACT standards for equipment leaks, heat
exchange systems, process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and
transfer operations) located at CMAS, and the GACT standards we are
proposing for pressure vessels and PRDs at these same area sources,
should be similar, if not the same, as the major source standards that
were finalized in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
NESHAP (MON) and Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) and (f) (see 85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020 and 89 FR 42932,
May 16, 2024, respectively). Our rationale for this is based on the
similarities between production processes, emission points, emissions,
and control technologies that are characteristic of both major and area
source chemical manufacturing facilities and considerations of cost.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EPA also considers the costs and economic impacts of
available control technologies and management practices when
determining whether to revise a standard pursuant to section
112(d)(6); and the EPA also considers costs, energy, and other
relevant factors when determining whether to revise a standard in
the second step of the ample margin of safety analysis pursuant to
CAA section 112(f)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that if standards for EtO are finalized, the EPA has
committed to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to assess the
risk posed from EtO emission sources subject to the CMAS NESHAP.
Specifically, the EPA committed to assess risk within four years of
promulgation of standards. At that time, the EPA would determine if it
is appropriate to review the standards prior to the date required by
CAA section 112(d)(6) (i.e., 8 years).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On June 1, 2022, the EPA, in response to the OIG's report
stating that EPA should revise the CMAS NESHAP to regulate EtO and
conduct a residual risk review, stated: ``. . . technology-based
standards for EtO have not yet been established for the CMAS source
category. Therefore, we plan to first evaluate EtO emissions from
the source category, and if EtO emissions present a public health
concern (i.e., by considering risk information), we will regulate
EtO in the CMAS rule . . . However, within four years of
promulgation (enough time to understand the level of emissions
remaining after implementation of new standards) of an any initial
EtO standards for CMAS, EPA would assess the risks from EtO
emissions from CMAS sources to inform us on whether an earlier
review date is appropriate.'' Refer to https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/_epaoig_21-P-0129_Agency_Response2.pdf for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Technology Review Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112(d) and revise them ``as necessary
(taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years following promulgation
of those standards. This is referred to as a ``technology review'' and
is required for all standards established under CAA section 112(d)
including GACT standards that apply to area sources.
As previously mentioned, GACT standards were set for the CMAS
categories in 2009. Although in this action we are proposing additional
GACT standards for these categories, this proposed action also presents
the required CAA 112(d)(6) technology review of the 2009 GACT standards
for these source categories.
B. What are the source categories and how does the current NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions?
The EPA promulgated the CMAS NESHAP on October 29, 2009 (74 FR
56008), and codified the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. As
promulgated in 2009, and further amended on December 21, 2012 (77 FR
75740), the CMAS NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from chemical
manufacturing process units at an area source of HAP emissions if HAP
listed in table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV are present in the
CMPU. A CMPU includes all process vessels, equipment, and activities
necessary to
[[Page 7947]]
operate a chemical manufacturing process that produces a material or a
family of materials described by NAICS code 325.\7\ A CMPU consists of
one or more unit operations and any associated recovery devices. A CMPU
also includes each storage tank, transfer operation, surge control
vessel, and bottoms receiver associated with the production of such
NAICS code 325 materials. The affected source is the facility-wide
collection of CMPUs and each heat exchange system and wastewater system
associated with a CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Except for: (1) processes classified in NAICS Code 325222,
325314, 325413, or 325998; (2) processes subject to standards for
other listed area source categories in NAICS 325; (3) certain
fabricating operations; (4) manufacture of photographic film, paper,
and plate where material is coated or contains chemicals (but the
manufacture of the photographic chemicals is regulated); and (5)
manufacture of radioactive elements or isotopes, radium chloride,
radium luminous compounds, strontium, and uranium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CMAS NESHAP currently applies to chemical manufacturing
operations at nine area source categories: (1) Agricultural Chemicals
and Pesticides Manufacturing; (2) Cyclic Crude and Intermediate
Production; (3) Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; (4)
Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing; (5) Inorganic Pigments
Manufacturing; (6) Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing; (7)
Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing; (8) Pharmaceutical
Production; and (9) Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. These nine CMAS
categories encompass facilities that use as feedstocks,\8\ generate as
byproducts, or produce as products any of the following 15 HAP: 1,3-
butadiene; 1,3-dichloropropene; acetaldehyde; chloroform; ethylene
dichloride; hexachlorobenzene; methylene chloride; quinoline (these
eight HAP are referred to as the ``Table 1 \9\ organic HAP'');
compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel
(these six HAP are referred to as the ``Table 1 metal HAP''); or
hydrazine. In this preamble we refer to the nine source categories
collectively as CMAS categories (we are also proposing a tenth source
category as discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble). Descriptions
of the nine source categories are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other additives
to the process.
\9\ ``Table 1'' refers to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing. The
agricultural chemicals and pesticides manufacturing source category is
designated by NAICS codes 325311 (nitrogenous fertilizer
manufacturing), 325312 (phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing), and
325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing).
Products of this industry include nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizer
materials including anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate,
ammonium sulfate, urea, phosphoric acid, superphosphates, ammonium
phosphates, and calcium metaphosphates. The source category also
includes the formulation and preparation of ready-to-use agricultural
and household pest control chemicals from technical chemicals or
concentrates, the production of concentrates which require further
processing before use as agricultural pesticides, and the manufacturing
or formulating of other agricultural chemicals such as minor or trace
elements and soil conditioners.
Organic Chemical Production. The cyclic crude and intermediate
production, industrial organic chemical manufacturing, and
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing source categories are
discussed collectively because there is considerable overlap in the
NAICS codes that apply to these source categories. These source
categories include cellulosic organic fiber manufacturing as well as
other source categories that are designated by NAICS codes 32511
(petrochemical manufacturing), 325130 (synthetic dye and pigment
manufacturing), 32519 (other basic organic chemical manufacturing), and
3256 (soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing).
The source category also includes organic gases designated by NAICS
code 325120 (industrial gas manufacturing), and it includes production
of chemicals such as explosives and photographic chemicals designated
by NAICS code 3259 (other chemical product and preparation
manufacturing). Raw materials for this industry include, for example,
refined petroleum chemicals, coal tars, and wood. The industry
manufactures a wide variety of final products as well as numerous
chemicals that are used as feedstocks to produce these final products
and products in other chemical manufacturing source categories.
Examples of types of products include solvents, organic dyes and
pigments, plasticizers, alcohols, detergents, and flavorings.
Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing. The industrial
inorganic chemical manufacturing source category includes manufacturing
of inorganic gases that are designated by NAICS code 325120 (industrial
gas manufacturing), manufacturing of inorganic dyes that are designated
by NAICS code 325130 (synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing), and
most manufacturing designated by NAICS code 32518 (other basic
inorganic chemical manufacturing). Exceptions to production designated
by NAICS code 32518 include carbon black and mercury cell chlor-alkali
production, which are separate source categories.
Inorganic Pigment Manufacturing. Inorganic pigments are part of
NAICS code 325130 (synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing). The
majority of inorganic pigments are oxides, sulfides, oxide hydroxides,
silicates, sulfates, or carbonates that normally consist of single
component particles. The inorganic pigment manufacturing processes can
generally be divided between those that use partial combustion and
those that use pure pyrolysis. Inorganic pigments generally are used to
impart colors to a variety of compounds. They may also impart
properties of rust inhibition, rigidity, and abrasion resistance.
Inorganic pigments are generally insoluble and remain unchanged
physically and chemically when mixed with a carrier. Pigment
manufacturers supply inorganic colors in a variety of forms including
powders, pastes, granules, slurries, and suspensions. Pigments are used
in the manufacture of paints and stains, printing inks, plastics,
synthetic textiles, paper, cosmetics, contact lenses, soaps,
detergents, wax, modeling clay, chalks, crayons, artists' colors,
concrete, masonry products, and ceramics.
Pharmaceutical Production. The pharmaceutical manufacturing source
category consists of chemical production operations that produce drugs
and medication. These operations include chemical synthesis (deriving a
drug's active ingredient) and chemical formulation (producing a drug in
its final form). The source category is designated by NAICS codes
325411 (medicinal and botanical manufacturing), 325412 (pharmaceutical
preparation manufacturing), and 325414 (biological product, except
diagnostic, manufacturing).
Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing. This source category is
designated by NAICS code 325211 (plastics material and resin
manufacturing). Examples of products in this source category include
epoxy resins, nylon resins, phenolic resins, polyesters, polyethylene
resins, and styrene resins. The source category does not include
polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production, which is a separate
source category.
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The synthetic rubber manufacturing
source category is designated by NAICS code
[[Page 7948]]
325212 (synthetic rubber manufacturing). Facilities in this source
category manufacture synthetic rubber or vulcanizable elastomers by
polymerization or copolymerization. For this source category, an
elastomer is defined as a rubber-like material capable of
vulcanization, such as copolymers of butadiene and styrene, copolymers
of butadiene and acrylonitrile, polybutadienes, chloroprene rubbers,
and isobutylene-isoprene copolymers.
The HAP emission sources at facilities subject to the CMAS NESHAP
include process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer
operations, and wastewater. Additionally, some facilities have cooling
towers or other heat exchangers. The GACT standards for CMAS include
emission standards in the form of management practices for each CMPU as
well as emission limits for certain emission sources including process
vents and storage tanks. The rule also establishes management practices
and other emission reduction requirements for wastewater systems and
heat exchange systems.
As of May 1, 2024, the EPA identified 251 facilities in operation
that are subject to the CMAS NESHAP. In addition, we are aware of 29
more facilities that would become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO
were to be added to table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP, as proposed (see
section II.A.1 of this preamble) \10\. In this preamble, we referred to
all 280 of these facilities collectively as ``CMAS facilities.'' The
list of CMAS facilities located in the United States that are part of
the CMAS categories with processes subject to the CMAS NESHAP is
presented in the document titled List of Facilities Subject to the CMAS
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ While 29 facilities were identified to become subject to
CMAS NESHAP if EtO were to be added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV, four of the 251 facilities currently subject to the
CMAS NESHAP also emit EtO. As such, in total, there are 33
facilities emitting EtO that may be impacted by this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
1. Facility List
The EPA used several data sources to determine the facilities that
are subject to the CMAS NESHAP discussed in section II.B of this
preamble. We began with the facility list from the original rulemaking
for the CMAS NESHAP (74 FR 56008, October 29, 2009). This list was
supplemented with information from the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's Enforcement and Compliance History Online tool
(https://echo.epa.gov) as well as other facility lists from the EPA's
recent chemical sector rulemakings (e.g., HON, MON, Organic Liquid
Distribution NESHAP (OLD), Ethylene Production MACT standards (EMACT
standards), and Polyether Polyols Production (PEPO) NESHAP).
We also collected and considered facility specific information from
the regions and/or states, if the information had not already been
captured by the previous steps. For example, we obtained title V air
permits from publicly available online state databases (where
available). In cases where an online database was incomplete or did not
exist, the EPA contacted the region and/or state for help in obtaining
the air permits or determining whether a facility was subject to the
CMAS NESHAP or may become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO were to be
added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. The EPA also
conducted internet searches to determine the status of the facility
(e.g., whether the facility was still open, permanently closed, and/or
sold). Additional details about how the facility list was developed are
provided in the document titled List of Facilities Subject to the CMAS
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA solicits comment on the assumptions used to estimate the
number of facilities anticipated to be impacted by this action.
2. Emissions Inventory
For each facility subject to the CMAS NESHAP, we gathered emissions
data from the most recent version of the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), published in January 2021. Apart from the 2020 NEI
(which was the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic), the 2017 NEI was
the most vetted and recent publicly available data set at the time EPA
began gathering information for this proposed rulemaking.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Refer to the 2017 NEI Technical Support Document for
detailed discussion on the types of review and augmentation
performed for 2017 NEI (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/documents/nei2017_tsd_full_jan2021.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consulted with state agencies, EPA regions, air permits, and
facilities to determine whether any EtO records in the CMAS emissions
inventory needed to be updated (beyond the 2017 NEI).\12\ This review
revealed that several facilities have either voluntarily implemented
EtO emission reduction measures since 2017 or implemented them due to
state or other requirements; therefore, we made amendments to these EtO
records to reflect the specific reduction measures. See appendix 1 of
the document titled Risk Assessment for the Chemical Manufacturing Area
Source (CMAS) Source Categories in Support of the 2025 Technology
Review for the Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, for additional details on the analysis and methodology used
to develop the CMAS emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For facilities that would become subject (or are already
subject) to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO were to be added to table 1 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other Data Collection Activities
To inform our reviews of the Agency's emission standards, we
reviewed the EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best
Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER) Clearinghouse and regulatory development efforts for similar
sources published after the CMAS NESHAP was developed.
In January 2022, the EPA issued requests, pursuant to CAA section
114, to collect information from HON facilities (nine being also
subject to the PEPO NESHAP) owned and operated by eight entities (i.e.,
corporations). This effort focused on gathering comprehensive
information about process equipment, control technologies, point and
fugitive emissions, and other aspects of facility operations.
Additionally, the EPA requested stack testing for certain emission
sources (e.g., pollutants, including EtO, for vent streams). Also, the
EPA required that facilities conduct fugitive emission testing (i.e.,
fenceline monitoring) for any of six specific HAP they emit: benzene;
1,3-butadiene; chloroprene; EtO; ethylene dichloride; and vinyl
chloride. Companies submitted responses (and follow-up responses) and
testing results to the EPA during the summer and fall of 2022. Given
that CMPU sources subject to the CMAS NESHAP can be similar to HON CMPU
sources and PEPO sources,\13\ the EPA used the collected information to
estimate environmental and cost impacts associated with some of the
regulatory options considered and reflected in this proposed action.
The information not claimed as CBI by respondents is provided in the
document titled Data Received from Information Collection Request for
[[Page 7949]]
Chemical Manufacturers, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ HON CMPUs and polyether polyol manufacturing process units
(PMPUs) associated with the PEPO NESHAP have similar processes as
CMAS CMPUs in that regardless of size, each of these process units
may include chemical manufacturing equipment, heat exchange systems,
process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and/or
wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In proposing these amendments, we relied on certain technical
reports and memoranda that the EPA developed for flares used as air
pollution control devices (APCDs) in the Petroleum Refinery Sector risk
and technology review (RTR) and new source performance standards (NSPS)
rulemaking (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015). The Petroleum Refinery
Sector rulemaking docket is at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. For
completeness of the rulemaking record for this action and for ease of
reference in finding these items in the publicly available Petroleum
Refinery Sector rulemaking docket, we are including the most relevant
flare-related technical support documents in the docket for this
proposed action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303) and including a
list of all documents used to inform the 2015 flare provisions in the
Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR and NSPS rulemaking in the document
titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for
Flares that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review
for Flares Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process Units at Area
Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
We are also relying on data gathered to support the rulemakings for
the EMACT standards, HON, and MON, as well as memoranda documenting the
technology reviews for those processes. Many of the emission sources
for ethylene production facilities, HON facilities, and MON facilities
are similar to CMAS facilities, and the EPA analyzed several of the
control options for the CMAS NESHAP that the Agency also analyzed for
the rulemakings for the EMACT standards, HON, and MON. The memoranda
and background technical information can be found in the Ethylene
Production RTR rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0357),
the HON rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730), and the
MON RTR rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746).
Additional information related to the promulgation and subsequent
amendments of the CMAS NESHAP is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0334.
E. What are the results of the EPA's risk assessment?
As discussed in section II.A.1, the EPA conducted a human health
risk assessment to determine if EtO emissions from CMAS present a
threat of adverse effects to human health (e.g., a public health
concern) and therefore warrant regulation via the creation of a new
source category pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (5). Following
the update to the IRIS value for EtO, it became apparent that emissions
of EtO from CMAS could be posing a significant threat to public health.
The OIG released a report in 2021 that identified potential elevated
cancer risks due to EtO emissions from CMAS using data from the 2014
NATA.\14\ While the primary focus of the risk assessment was on EtO
emissions, consistent with other risk assessments for HAPs, we
estimated the MIR posed by emissions of HAP that are carcinogens from
each evaluated CMAS, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard
quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause
noncancer health effects.\15\ This section summarizes the results of
those analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The report is available at https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/_epaoig_20210506-21-p-0129.pdf.
\15\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA often conducts risk assessments at both the facility and
source category level when investigating human health concerns and uses
standard methodology for all risk assessments. However, we note that
this risk assessment was completed using the emissions inventory
described in section II.C.2 of this preamble. As such, there are
uncertainties with the results of the risk assessment engendered by the
uncertainties associated with the emissions inventory. However, given
the information available, we believe the risk assessment supports our
conclusion that these sources present a threat of an adverse impact on
human health. Additional details on the risk assessment and exact
methodology are presented in the document titled, Risk Assessment for
the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) Source Categories in
Support of the 2025 Technology Review for the Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
As discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, the MIR posed by
the evaluated sources is 800-in-1 million, driven primarily (greater
than 90 percent) by EtO emissions from process vents (97 percent).
Approximately 4.4 million people within 50 kilometers (km) of the
evaluated CMAS are estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million
and 3,600 people are estimated to have cancer risks above 100-in-1
million due to emissions from the sources. The people with risks above
100-in-1 million all reside within 10 km of the sources. The sources
are estimated to result in 0.4 additional cancer cases per year, or 1
cancer case every 2.5 years. Emissions from the evaluated CMAS drive
cancer risk attributable to whole facility emissions, such that the
risk posed by all HAP emissions from the facilities are generally the
same as the risk posed by the evaluated sources, except that emissions
from whole facility emissions increase the population with risk greater
than 1-in-1 million living within 50 km by 200,000 people.
The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index
(TOSHI) for the evaluated CMAS is estimated to be 3 (for respiratory
and immunological effects) at two facilities due to nickel compounds
emissions from process vents at one facility and equipment leaks and
fugitive emissions at the other facility. The same nickel emissions
also drive the estimated maximum facility-wide TOSHI of 3.
Approximately 1,500 people are estimated to have a TOSHI greater than 1
due to emissions from the evaluated CMAS.
The estimated reasonable worst-case off-site acute inhalation
exposures to emissions from the CMAS categories results in an estimated
maximum modeled acute noncancer HQ of 20 based on CalEPA's Chronic
Reference Exposure Level for acrolein. It is important to note that
when assessing acute inhalation exposures, the EPA makes conservative
assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location.
We assume that an individual is present at the location of maximum
exposure at the exact same hour that peak emissions occur (using a
default factor of 10 from average actual annual emissions rates) and
the exact same hour the reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions
(i.e., 99th percentile) occur. Together, these assumptions represent a
reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most cases, it is
unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum
exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
[[Page 7950]]
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. Furthermore,
at the facility where the maximum HQ of 20 is estimated, the maximum
exposure is modeled to occur along the fenceline of the facility at a
location immediately surrounded by farmland making it more unlikely a
person would be located at that point at the exact hour the peak
emissions and the reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions
occur.
We also conducted a community-based risk assessment for facilities
currently subject to the CMAS NESHAP or who would become subject to the
CMAS NESHAP with the proposal of the new area source category (see
section II.C.1 of this preamble for details on how the facility list
was developed). The goal of this assessment was to estimate cancer risk
from HAP emitted from all local stationary point sources for which we
have emissions data. We estimated the overall inhalation cancer risk
due to emissions from all stationary point sources impacting census
blocks within 10 km of the CMAS facilities. Specifically, we combined
the modeled impacts from category and non-category HAP sources at CMAS
facilities, as well as other stationary point source HAP emissions. The
results indicate that the community-level maximum individual cancer
risk is 5,000-in-1 million, with all risk attributable to chromium VI
emissions from an area source iron foundry. The Agency will investigate
these emissions to determine if follow-up action is necessary. We note
that the 2020 NEI data (the baseline for the community-level
assessment) for the facility driving the community-level MIR present an
anomalously high year of chromium VI emissions compared to other years.
Also, the default speciation of chromium emissions to chromium III and
chromium VI emissions done by the NEI is a conservative estimate of
emissions and may not be representative of the actual emissions. In
addition, we note that there is additional uncertainty in non-CMAS
categories emissions because they were not reviewed to the same extent
as emissions from CMAS facilities. Within 10 km, the population exposed
to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million from all nearby emissions
is approximately 5,600. For comparison, approximately 3,600 people have
cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million due to emissions from the
evaluated CMAS NESHAP (see table 1 of this preamble).
After the controls proposed in this action are implemented for the
CMAS categories (see sections IV.A through IV.C of this preamble),
including the contribution from all non-EtO HAP, the maximum individual
cancer risk is estimated to be 100-in-1 million and no facilities are
estimated to pose cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million. The number
of people living within 50 km of CMAS facilities with risk greater than
1-in-1 million due to emissions from the CMAS categories will decrease
from 4.4 million to 2.3 million. Chronic and acute noncancer risk is
not estimated to change, although our proposal to remove the 50 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) criteria as part of the definition of
``metal HAP process vent'' (see section IV.C.3 of this preamble) is
anticipated to reduce emissions of nickel that drive the chronic
noncancer risk. After implementation of the proposed controls, the
community-level maximum individual cancer risk will remain unchanged at
5,000-in-1 million. The population (within 10 km of CMAS facilities)
exposed to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million from all nearby
emissions will be reduced from 5,600 people to 1,900 people; a 66
percent reduction from the baseline. The increased cancer risk for most
of these 1,900 people is driven largely by emissions of chromium VI
from non-CMAS facilities within 10 km of CMAS facilities.
See table 1 of this preamble for a summary of the CMAS NESHAP
inhalation risk assessment results. We present the full results and
methods of the risk assessment in more detail, in the document titled
Risk Assessment for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS)
Source Categories in Support of the 2025 Technology Review for the
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 1--Inhalation Cancer Risk Assessment Results for Communities Living Within 10 to 50 km of CMAS Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated population at increased risk Refined
individual of cancer maximum
Number of cancer risk ----------------------------------------- Estimated annual Maximum chronic screening
Risk assessment facilities (-in-1 cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI acute
\1\ million) >100-in-1 million >=1-in-1 million (cases per year) noncancer
\2\ HQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (Pre-Control) Actual Emissions \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................. 248 800 3,600 (10 km)...... 2 million (10 km). 0.2 (10 km)....... 3 (respiratory, 20
3,600 (50 km)...... 4.4 million (50 0.4 (50 km)....... immunological).
km).
Facility-wide................... 279 800 3,600 (10 km)...... 2.2 million (10 0.2 (10 km)....... 3 (respiratory, \4\ --
3,600 (50 km)...... km). 0.4 (50 km)....... immunological).
4.6 million (50
km).
Community-based................. \5\ 9,932 5,000 5,600 (10 km)...... 8.6 million (10 0.8 (10 km)....... .................. ...........
km).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Control Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................. 248 100 0.................. 1.3 million (10 0.1 (10 km)....... 3 (respiratory, 20
km). 0.2 (50 km)....... immunological).
2.3 million (50
km).
Facility-wide................... 279 100 0.................. 1.4 million (10 0.1 (10 km)....... 3 (respiratory, ...........
km). 0.2 (50 km)....... immunological).
2.5 million (50
km).
Community-based................. \3\ 9,932 5,000 1,900 (10 km)...... 8 million (10 km). 0.6 (10 km)....... .................. ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thirty-one (31) additional facilities were modeled for the CMAS whole-facility analysis compared to the CMAS categories analysis, because 279
facilities were originally identified as potentially subject to the CMAS NESHAP considering the current and proposed source categories based on permit
review and/or the facility's presence in the previous rulemaking's facility list. However, upon further review, only 248 of these 279 facilities were
identified as having emissions from the CMAS categories.
[[Page 7951]]
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions.
\3\ Potential differences between actual emission levels and the maximum emissions allowable under EPA's standards (i.e., ``allowable emissions'') were
also evaluated for the CMAS categories. For the 248 CMAS facilities, there were 4 facilities with allowable emissions that differed from actual
emissions. These emissions were evaluated and it was determined there would be no appreciable difference in the risk results; therefore, the risk
results provided based on actual emissions also describe the risk assessment results based on allowable emissions.
\4\ ``--'' Indicates where an assessment was not conducted.
\5\ 9,653 nearby non-CMAS facilities in addition to the 279 facilities CMAS facilities evaluated.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we determine GACT?
As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards
representing GACT to regulate EtO emissions from equipment leaks, heat
exchange systems, process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and
transfer operations located at CMAS. The statute does not set any
condition precedent for issuing standards under CAA section 112(d)(5)
other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must
be one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), which is the
case here. In determining what constitutes GACT for this proposed rule,
we considered the control technologies and management practices that
are generally available to EtO emission sources at CMAS by examining
relevant data and information, including information collected from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and PEPO
Production major source categories. We also considered the standards
for major chemical manufacturing sources subject to the MON and HON
(see 85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020, and 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024,
respectively) to determine if the control technologies and work
practice standards for the major sources are generally available to
area sources as well. Finally, we considered the costs of available
control technologies and management practices on area sources.
From the information that we have collected to date in conjunction
with this rulemaking, which includes information about process
equipment, control technologies, point and fugitive emissions, and
other aspects of facility operations at major chemical manufacturing
sources, we know that area sources have the same types of emissions,
emission sources, and controls as major sources. Equipment leaks, heat
exchange systems, process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and
transfer operations at major and area sources are using the same
control technologies. There are generally no discernible differences
between the processes at area and major chemical manufacturing sources
excepting size. In fact, major and area sources use similar, if not
identical, control technologies and practices to manage process
emissions. Therefore, the control technologies used by chemical
manufacturing major sources are generally available for CMAS.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
For the NESHAP area source GACT standard, our technology review
primarily focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred
since the standards were promulgated. Where we identify such
developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs,
energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also
consider the emission reductions associated with applying each
development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is
``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we
consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus
retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of
the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice, management practice, or operational
procedure that was not identified or considered during development of
the original GACT standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original GACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the CMAS NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources
in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are our proposed decisions regarding standards representing
GACT for EtO emissions from CMAS, and what is the rationale for those
decisions?
As discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA is
proposing, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (5), to create an area
source category describing chemical manufacturing operations using EtO.
Specifically, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.11494(a)(2)(v) that you are
subject to the CMAS NESHAP if you own or operate a CMPU that is located
at an area source of HAP and EtO is used as a feedstock at an
individual concentration greater than 0.1 percent by weight; generated
as a byproduct and is present in the CMPU in any liquid stream (process
or waste) at a concentration of greater than or equal to 1 part per
million by weight (ppmw); generated as a byproduct and is present in
the CMPU in any continuous process vent or batch process vent at a
concentration greater than 1 ppmv; or is produced as a product of the
CMPU. The EPA is also proposing amendments to the CMAS NESHAP pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(5) to include:
New monitoring requirements for leaks from equipment in
EtO service;
New monitoring requirements for leaks from heat exchange
systems in EtO service;
A new emissions standard for batch and continuous process
vents in EtO service;
A new emissions standard for storage tanks in EtO service;
New control requirements for wastewater streams in EtO
service;
Improved operational and monitoring requirements for
flares that emit EtO;
A new fenceline monitoring standard related to EtO
emissions; and
A requirement that any release event from a PRD in EtO
service is a deviation.
The data, analyses, results, and proposed decisions pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(5) are presented for each
[[Page 7952]]
emission source in sections IV.A.1 through IV.A.8 of this preamble.
The EPA considers multiple factors in assessing the costs of
emission reductions.\16\ These factors include, but are not limited to,
total capital costs, total annual costs, cost effectiveness, and annual
costs compared to total annual revenues for ultimate owners of affected
facilities (i.e., costs to sales ratios). EtO is a highly potent
carcinogen and the cost-effectiveness numbers presented in sections
IV.A.1 through IV.A.8 of this preamble are within range of values that
we have determined to be cost effective for highly toxic HAP. For small
hard chromium electroplating, to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, costs of $15,000 per pound (lb) ($30,000,000 per
ton) were finalized due to the toxicity of hexavalent chromium (see 77
FR 58227-8 and 77 FR 58239, September 19, 2012). EtO is similarly
highly toxic. The cost-effectiveness values presented in sections
IV.A.1 through IV.A.8 of this preamble are also within the range of
cost-effectiveness for control of EtO emissions that the EPA found
reasonable as part of the recent commercial sterilizers rulemaking (see
89 FR 24090, April 5, 2024). In this rulemaking, the EPA accepted costs
of up to $17,500,000/ton for existing sources in setting standards
under CAA section 112(d)(5). In addition, our established methodology
for assessing economic impacts of regulations indicates that the
potential for adverse economic impacts begins when a costs to sales
ratio exceeds three percent. According to our estimates, the
anticipated annual costs of the proposed emission control options
discussed below are well below three percent of annual sales for the
majority of the owners of potentially impacted EtO sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055,
1060 (DC Circ. April 18, 2014) (``Section 112 does not command the
EPA to use a particular form of cost analysis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment Leaks in EtO Service
Emissions from equipment leaks occur in the form of gases or
liquids that escape to the atmosphere through connection points (e.g.,
threaded connectors) or through the moving parts of components such as
pumps and valves. EtO emissions are released from equipment leaks when
the components are associated with equipment that contain EtO (referred
to as equipment in EtO service). We provide details about equipment
leaks, including how the CMAS NESHAP regulates them, in our technology
review discussion (see section IV.C.1 of this preamble). For the GACT
standard analysis, we evaluated a single control option for leaks from
equipment in EtO service. The control option evaluated is identical to
the HON standards for leaks from equipment in EtO service and similar
(in terms of the technology, which is using EPA Method 21 instrument
monitoring) to the control options that we evaluated in the equipment
leaks technology review (see section IV.C.1 of this preamble). The EPA
recently added EtO-specific requirements into the HON for equipment in
EtO service that requires a more stringent monitoring frequency (i.e.,
monthly monitoring) and lower leak definitions (i.e., 100 ppmv or 500
ppmv) compared to monitoring for leaks from equipment not in EtO
service. In the HON, equipment in EtO service is equipment that
contains or contacts a fluid that is at least 0.1 percent by weight
EtO.
As such, given the transferability of major source work practice
standards to CMAS management practices due to the minimal differences
between performing instrument monitoring at a major source compared to
an area source, we evaluated the following option to represent GACT for
equipment ``in ethylene oxide service'' that are located at CMAS:
Control Option 1 (if EtO was added to table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVVVVV): conduct monthly EPA Method 21 monitoring at a
leak definition of 100 ppmv for connectors and valves in EtO service
and 500 ppmv for pumps in EtO service.
We find this Control Option and the associated technologies to be
``generally available'' per the language of CAA section 112(d)(5).
While it was not proposed in the original CMAS rulemaking, an
instrument monitoring program similar to the MON was evaluated as part
of the original CMAS rulemaking in 2008. In addition, conducting EPA
Method 21 monitoring has been an option for the CMAS management
practices since promulgation (i.e., owners and operators may perform
EPA Method 21 monitoring in lieu of conducting audio, visual, and
olfactory (AVO) inspections). Also, the EPA is aware of facilities that
have already implemented instrument monitoring in some capacity as part
of complying with other regulatory requirements or as part of a
company-wide initiative to address EtO emissions. Therefore, we
conclude that instrument monitoring is generally available.
We estimated the cost and emissions reductions of Control Option 1
for 33 CMAS EtO facilities. Using background information available to
the EPA (including air permits and information received from various
EPA regional offices), it was determined that 10 CMAS EtO facilities
are already conducting instrument monitoring as part of an LDAR program
for their equipment in EtO service. Based on this, there are two types
of facilities for purposes of identifying their baseline LDAR program
for equipment in EtO service: those that do not have an LDAR program of
any kind; and those that already conduct EPA Method 21 instrument
monitoring. When evaluating the cost and emissions reductions for each
facility, we calculated the incremental cost and reductions to meet
Control Option 1 compared to a facility's baseline LDAR program. The
memorandum Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for
Equipment Leaks that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Equipment Leaks from Chemical Manufacturing
Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking, summarizes the baseline
LDAR program for each of the 33 CMAS EtO facilities evaluated for this
control option and presents details on the methodologies used in this
analysis.
Table 2 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for
requiring owners and operators of equipment in EtO service to perform
EPA Method 21 monitoring in accordance with Control Option 1. Based on
the costs and emission reductions, we are proposing to revise the CMAS
NESHAP for equipment in EtO service to reflect Control Option 1
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5).
[[Page 7953]]
Table 2--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Option 1 for Requiring EPA Method 21 Monitoring for Equipment in EtO Service at
Certain Facilities \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total annualized annualized EtO cost EtO cost
capital costs w/o costs with VOC emission EtO emission effectiveness w/ effectiveness
Control option investment recovery recovery reductions reductions o recovery with recovery
($) credits ($/ credits ($/ (tpy) (tpy) \2\ credits ($/ credits ($/
yr) yr) ton) ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 511,000 1,261,000 1,129,400 146 83 15,100 13,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are
already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit EtO.
\2\ We note that EtO emission reductions from equipment leaks (and subsequent cost-effectiveness values for EtO from equipment leaks) differ from
reductions expected to occur from reported emissions inventories due to use of model plants, engineering assumptions made to estimate baseline
emissions, and uncertainties in how fugitive emissions may have been calculated for reported inventories compared to our model plants analysis (and
are documented in the memorandum).
The EPA is proposing to define equipment leaks ``in ethylene oxide
service'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b), by reference to the HON (40 CFR
63.101). We are proposing Control Option 1 for equipment leaks in EtO
service at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(7). These proposed requirements would
apply to all new and existing affected sources and specify that:
All connectors in EtO service be monitored monthly at a
leak definition of 100 ppmv with no skip period, and delay of repair is
not allowed unless the equipment can be isolated such that it is no
longer in EtO service (see 40 CFR 63.174(a)(3), (b)(3)(vi), and (g)(3),
and 40 CFR 63.171(f)).
All gas/vapor and light liquid valves in EtO service be
monitored monthly at a leak definition of 100 ppmv with no skip period,
and delay of repair is not allowed unless the equipment can be isolated
such that it is no longer in EtO service (see 40 CFR 63.168(b)(2)(iv)
and (d)(5), and 40 CFR 63.171(f)).
All light liquid pumps in EtO service be monitored monthly
at a leak definition of 500 ppmv, and delay of repair is not allowed
unless the equipment can be isolated such that it is no longer in EtO
service (see 40 CFR 63.163(a)(1)(iii), (b)(2)(iv), (c)(4), and (e)(7),
and 40 CFR 63.171(f)).
2. Heat Exchange Systems in EtO Service
Emissions of EtO from heat exchange systems occur when a heat
exchanger's internal tubing material corrodes or cracks, allowing some
process fluids to mix or become entrained with the cooling water.
Pollutants (e.g., EtO) in the process fluids may subsequently be
released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is
exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or
trenches/ponds in a once-through system). We provide more details about
heat exchange systems, including how the CMAS NESHAP regulates them, in
our technology review discussion (see section IV.C.2 of this preamble).
Our CMAS heat exchange system technology review (see section IV.C.2 of
this preamble) identified use of the Modified El Paso Method as a
development in practice for heat exchange systems with a cooling water
flow rate equal to or greater than 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
Specifically, we identified the following control option for heat
exchange systems: quarterly monitoring with the Modified El Paso
Method, using a leak action level defined as a total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2
ppmv. This option would also require repairing a leak no later than 45
days after first identifying the leak, delay of repair within 120 days
(except within no more than 30 days where a total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv
or higher is found), and re-monitoring at the monitoring location where
the leak was identified to ensure that any leaks found are fixed.
To assess what GACT standards may be appropriate if EtO is added to
table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, we reviewed other
rulemakings to identify the level of control required for heat exchange
systems emitting EtO. As part of that review, we identified one rule
requiring monitoring of heat exchange systems ``in ethylene oxide
service.'' The EPA recently added EtO-specific requirements into the
HON for heat exchange systems in EtO service that require more
stringent monitoring frequency (weekly instead of quarterly) and repair
of leaks within 15 days from the sampling date (in lieu of the current
45-day repair requirement after receiving results of monitoring
indicating a leak) (see 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024). Additionally, delay
of repair is not allowed unless there is no longer an active EtO leak
once the heat exchange system is isolated and not in EtO service. A
heat exchange system in EtO service means any heat exchange system in a
process that cools process fluids (liquid or gas) that are 0.1 percent
or greater by weight of EtO. If knowledge exists that suggests EtO
could be present in a heat exchange system, then the heat exchange
system is considered to be ``in ethylene oxide service'' unless the
procedures specified in the HON at 40 CFR 63.109 are performed to
demonstrate that the heat exchange system does not meet the definition
of being ``in ethylene oxide service.'' Examples of information that
could suggest EtO could be present in a heat exchange system include
calculations based on safety data sheets, material balances, process
stoichiometry, or previous test results provided the results are still
relevant to the current operating conditions.
Given the EtO specific requirements in the HON for heat exchange
systems in EtO service and minimal operational differences between heat
exchange systems operating at SOCMI and CMAS facilities, we evaluated
the following options in the selection of GACT for all heat exchange
systems ``in ethylene oxide service'' that are located at CMAS:
Control Option 1: quarterly monitoring (after an initial
six months of monthly monitoring) with the Modified El Paso Method,
using a leak action level defined as a total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv; reduce the
allowed amount of repair time from 45 days after finding a leak to 15
days from the sampling date; and prohibit delay of repair.
Control Option 2: same as Control Option 1, except monthly
monitoring with the Modified El Paso Method instead of quarterly
monitoring.
Control Option 3: same as Control Option 1, except weekly
monitoring with the Modified El Paso Method instead of quarterly
monitoring. This option is required in the HON.
The Modified El Paso Method is required and in use by sources
regulated under other rulemakings including, but not limited to the
MON, the HON, and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. The method works via
air stripping and use of a flame ionization detector (FID), both of
which are well understood
[[Page 7954]]
technologies in the chemical manufacturing sector and have been in use
for decades. Given the widespread use of the fundamental technologies
and method in other, similar chemical manufacturing facilities, we
consider use of the Modified El Paso Method to be ``generally
available.''
We estimated the impacts of these Control Options using information
from the original CMAS rulemaking.\17\ We estimated that 27 of the 33
facilities that either would become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO
is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV or that are
already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit EtO would be affected by
Control Options 1 through 3; and we assumed each affected facility does
not currently have an LDAR program for monitoring their cooling water.
As part of our analysis, we also assumed all facilities monitoring
quarterly for two or less heat exchange systems would elect to contract
out the Modified El Paso monitoring (instead of purchasing a stripping
column and FID analyzer and performing the monitoring in-house);
however, facilities monitoring monthly or weekly would elect to
purchase a stripping column and FID analyzer and perform in-house
monitoring due to logistics. In addition, we assumed repairs could be
performed by plugging a specific heat exchanger tube, and if a heat
exchanger is leaking to the extent that it needs to be replaced, then
it is effectively at the end of its useful life. Therefore, we
determined that the cost of replacing a heat exchanger is an
operational cost that would be incurred by the facility because of
routine maintenance and equipment replacement, and it is not
attributable to the Control Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ EPA, 2008. Control Options and Impacts for Cooling Tower
Control Measures Chemical Manufacturing Area Source Standards.
September 5, 2008. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-0003; and EPA,
2009. Update to the Control Options and Impacts for Heat Exchange
System Control Measures for Promulgation Chemical Manufacturing Area
Source Standards. May 5, 2009. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-
0081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for
requiring owners and operators of heat exchange systems in EtO service
to use the Modified El Paso Method and repair leaks of total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in accordance with Control
Options 1 through 3. See the document titled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Heat Exchange Systems that Emit
Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Heat
Exchange Systems Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process Units
at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and
methodologies used in this analysis.
While all Control Options were identified as cost effective based
on values accepted as part of other recent rulemakings regulating EtO
emissions (see 89 FR 24090, April 5, 2024, for the commercial
sterilizer rulemaking), the potency of EtO as a carcinogen, and
historic cost-effectiveness values accepted for highly toxic HAP (such
as hexavalent chromium), there are no records in the emissions
inventory from heat exchangers in EtO service. We note that leaks from
heat exchange systems handling EtO can still occur, even if there are
no specific emissions records in the inventory. This absence of records
is likely because most facilities emitting EtO have not been required
to monitor leaks in their heat exchange systems. Consequently, the
impacts associated with controlling these emissions are less certain
due to the lack of records. In addition, there are concerns that
monthly or weekly monitoring of heat exchangers in EtO service would be
significantly more burdensome for area sources than major sources.
Major sources may have additional capital and personnel bandwidth to
accommodate installation and operation of a stripping column and lab
equipment (such as a gas chromatograph/mass spectroscopy unit)
necessary for in-house analysis compared to area sources who may not
have previously been subject to any monitoring of heat exchange
systems. As such, based on the costs, emissions reductions, and
uncertainties, we are proposing that Control Option 1 represents GACT
for heat exchange systems in EtO service. However, we are soliciting
comments and data on whether more frequent monitoring (i.e., Control
Options 2 and 3) would be appropriate for CMAS considering the proposed
addition of EtO to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV.
Table 3--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Options 1 Through 3 for Requiring the Modified El Paso Method for Heat Exchange Systems in EtO Service at Certain
Facilities \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total annualized annualized EtO cost EtO cost EtO Incremental
capital costs w/o costs with VOC emission EtO emission effectiveness w/ effectiveness cost effectiveness
Control option investment recovery recovery reductions reductions o recovery with recovery with recovery
($) credits ($/ credits ($/ (tpy) (tpy) credits ($/ton) credits ($/ton) credits (from
yr) yr) option 1) ($/ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................ 122,000 157,000 117,900 43.4 24.8 6,300 4,700 ..................
2................................................................ 122,000 359,400 319,500 44.3 25.3 14,200 12,500 388,500
3................................................................ 122,000 1,371,500 1,331,300 44.7 25.5 52,300 52,200 1,688,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit
EtO.
The EPA is proposing to define a heat exchange system ``in ethylene
oxide service'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b), by reference to the HON (40 CFR
63.101). We are proposing Control Option 1 at 40 CFR 63.11499(e) and
item 2 of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP, by reference to the HON (40 CFR
63.104(a), (f) through (i), and (k)), to specify quarterly monitoring
(after an initial six months of monthly monitoring) for leaks for all
new and existing affected sources with heat exchange systems in EtO
service using the Modified El Paso Method, and if a leak is found, we
are proposing owners and operators must repair the leak to below the
applicable leak action level as soon as practicable, but no later than
15 days after the sample was collected with no delay of repair allowed
(see 40 CFR 63.104(h)(6)).
3. Process Vents and Storage Tanks in EtO Service
Emissions of EtO can occur from several types of gas streams
associated with CMAS processes, such as distillation columns,
evaporator vents, and vacuum operations, as well as during vapor
displacements and heating losses. CMAS storage tanks are used to store
liquid and gaseous feedstocks for use in a process, as well as to store
[[Page 7955]]
liquid and gaseous products from a process. EtO is typically stored
under pressure as a liquified gas but may also be found in small
amounts in atmospheric storage tanks storing liquid products that are
formed with EtO as a reactant in their production. Typical emissions
from atmospheric storage tanks occur from working and breathing losses
while pressure vessels are considered closed systems and, if properly
maintained and operated, should have virtually no emissions. In some
instances, pressurized vessels also could use a blanket of inert gas,
most often nitrogen, to maintain a non-decomposable vapor space, and
continuous purge of vapor space from non-loading operations could also
lead to emissions from storage tanks. We provide details about process
vents and storage tanks, including how the CMAS NESHAP regulates them,
in our technology review discussion (see sections IV.C.3 and IV.C.4 of
this preamble, respectively).
To assess what GACT standards may be appropriate, we reviewed other
rulemakings to identify the level of control required for process vents
and storage vessels emitting EtO. As part of that review, we identified
two rules requiring stringent control of emissions from vents and
process tanks ``in ethylene oxide service.'' The EPA recently added
EtO-specific requirements into the MON and HON for process vents and
storage vessels in EtO service (see 85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020, and
89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024, respectively). We note that the MON and HON
use the term ``storage vessel'' in lieu of ``storage tank'' which is
used in the CMAS NESHAP. According to the MON and HON, a process vent
in EtO service is a process vent that contains a concentration of
greater than or equal to 1 ppmv undiluted EtO when uncontrolled, and
when all process vents within the process are combined, the sum of
uncontrolled EtO emissions are greater than or equal to 5 pounds per
year (lb/yr) (2.27 kilogram per year, kg/yr). A storage vessel in EtO
service means a storage vessel of any capacity and vapor pressure
storing a liquid that is at least 0.1 percent by weight of EtO. The
EtO-specific standards established for the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing and SOCMI source categories are as follows:
Requirements that owners and operators must reduce
emissions of EtO from process vents in EtO service by either: (1)
venting emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that
reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight, to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each process vent, or to less than 5
lb/yr for all combined process vents per CMPU; or (2) venting emissions
through a closed vent system to a flare meeting certain new operating
and monitoring requirements for flares; and
Requirements that owners and operators must reduce
emissions of EtO from storage tanks in EtO service by either: (1)
venting emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that
reduces EtO by greater than or equal to 99.9 percent by weight or to a
concentration less than 1 ppmv for each storage tank vent; or (2)
venting emissions through a closed vent system to a flare meeting
certain new operating and monitoring requirements for flares.
Given the EtO specific requirements in the MON and HON for process
vents and storage vessels in EtO service and minimal operational
differences between an APCD controlling emissions from process vents or
storage vessels/tanks at MON, SOCMI, and CMAS facilities, we evaluated
a Control Option to represent GACT for process vents and storage tanks
that are ``in ethylene oxide service'' that would require owners and
operators at certain CMAS (i.e., facilities that would either become
subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are already subject to the CMAS
NESHAP and emit EtO) to reduce emissions of EtO by 99.9 percent from
process vents and storage tanks that are ``in ethylene oxide service''
as defined by the MON and HON (i.e., Control Option 1). Our evaluation
considered the use of a thermal oxidizer achieving a 99.9 percent
reduction of EtO emissions to control emissions from process vents and
storage tanks in EtO service, as it is common for the same control
device to control emissions from both emission sources at chemical
plants. Control Option 1 reflects the EtO-specific requirements in the
MON and HON for process vents and storage vessels in EtO service;
therefore, it would apply to process vents in which the uncontrolled,
undiluted EtO emissions from all process vents in a CMPU are greater
than or equal to 5 lb/yr and the concentration of the uncontrolled,
undiluted stream is greater than or equal to 1 ppmv. This Control
Option would also apply to storage tanks of any capacity and vapor
pressure storing a liquid that is at least 0.1 percent by weight of
EtO.
We find this Control Option to be ``generally available'' per the
language of CAA section 112(d)(5). Control devices include a wide array
of potential technologies and so a facility may use whatever methods
are available to achieve the 99.9 percent by weight reduction in EtO
emissions. Thermal oxidizers, which we assumed will be installed by
facilities needing to meet the proposed standards, are used to control
emissions from process vents and storage tanks at sources regulated
under other rulemakings including, but not limited to, the MON and the
HON and have been in use in industry for decades. In addition, the CMAS
NESHAP already allows for the venting of emissions through a closed
vent system to a flare for both process vents and storage tanks. Given
the widespread use of a readily available control technology such as a
thermal oxidizer in other, similar chemical manufacturing facilities,
we consider this Control Option of proposing a 99.9 percent by weight
reduction of EtO emissions from process vents and storage tanks to be
``generally available.''
To determine which emission points at facilities would need
additional control of EtO emissions, we reviewed the CMAS emissions
inventory data (see section II.C.2 of this preamble). For each process
vent and storage tank emission point record with EtO emissions in the
CMAS emissions inventory, we determined whether it was controlled by a
non-flare combustion device, a non-combustion control device, a non-
combustion control device able to achieve 99.9 percent emissions
reduction, or was uncontrolled. There are no process vent or storage
tank emission point records associated with a non-flare combustion
device; however, for emission point records that are controlled by a
non-combustion control device, our impacts analyses assumed that none
of the facilities with existing non-combustion controls would be able
to achieve 99.9 percent control of EtO, unless a stack test or data
provided by a state agency confirmed otherwise. Therefore, we treated
non-combustion control devices unable to achieve 99.9 percent control
and uncontrolled emission point records in the same manner and assumed
that each would need to be controlled by a thermal oxidizer. Some
facilities that would need to install a thermal oxidizer to control EtO
have multiple process vent and/or storage tank emission points with EtO
emissions. Rather than costing out multiple thermal oxidizers for these
facilities, we assumed they would combine the streams together and
install a single thermal oxidizer (to control all EtO emissions), as is
commonly done at chemical plants. We also recognize that some emission
points could possibly achieve a 99.9 percent reduction in EtO emissions
by upgrading or installing a
[[Page 7956]]
new scrubber system instead of a new thermal oxidizer; and upgrading or
installing a new scrubber system would likely cost less than installing
a new thermal oxidizer. However, for simplicity, we only evaluated the
use of a thermal oxidizer to meet the Control Option because using
thermal oxidizers is common for controlling emissions from both process
vents and storage tanks in EtO service at chemical plants. Ultimately,
we determined that seven facilities would be impacted by Control Option
1 to reduce emissions of EtO by 99.9 percent from process vents and
storage tanks that are ``in ethylene oxide service'' as defined by the
MON and HON (1 of these 7 facilities is already subject to the CMAS
NESHAP and the remaining 6 facilities would become subject to the CMAS
NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as
proposed). We estimated costs to install a thermal oxidizer using the
EPA's control cost template.\18\ Table 4 of this preamble presents the
nationwide impacts of Control Option 1, requiring owners and operators
to reduce emissions of EtO by 99.9 percent from process vents and
storage tanks that are ``in ethylene oxide service'' as defined by the
MON and HON. See the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5)
GACT Standard Analysis for Process Vents and Storage Tanks that Emit
Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Process
Vents and Storage Tanks Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process
Units at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and
methodologies used in this analysis. Based on the costs and emission
reductions for Control Option 1, we are proposing to revise the CMAS
NESHAP for process vents and storage tanks in EtO service to reflect
Control Option 1 pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). The cost
effectiveness of this Control Option is within the range of values that
have been accepted in other recent rulemakings regulating EtO emissions
such as the commercial sterilizer rulemaking (see 89 FR 24090, April 5,
2024) \19\ and is within the range of historic cost-effectiveness
values that have been accepted for highly toxic HAP (such as hexavalent
chromium).\20\ EtO is similarly toxic due to its potency as a
carcinogen. As such, we find that this Control Option is cost
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Refer to the file ``Incinerators and Oxidizers Calculation
Spreadsheet (note: updated on 1/16/2018) (xlsm)'' which follows the
methodology from the sixth edition of the EPA Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual and can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\19\ The EPA finalized EtO emissions standards in the RTR for
sterilization facilities with costs estimated to be as much as
$17,500,000 per ton EtO.
\20\ For small hard chromium electroplating, to provide an ample
margin of safety, the EPA finalized a requirement with a cost
effectiveness of $15,000 per lb ($30,000,000 per ton) (see 77 FR
58227-8 and FR 77 58239, September 19, 2012).
Table 4--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Option 1 for Requiring 99.9 Percent Control
of Process Vents and Storage Tanks in EtO Service at Certain Facilities \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EtO cost
Control option Total capital Total annualized EtO emission effectiveness ($/
investment ($) costs ($/yr) reductions (tpy) ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 1,395,000 2,126,000 1.1 1,933,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit EtO.
The EPA is proposing to define a process vent ``in ethylene oxide
service'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b), by reference to the HON (40 CFR
63.101). We are proposing Control Option 1 for all new and existing
affected sources with process vents in EtO service at 40 CFR
63.11496(j), item 4 of table 2 to the CMAS NESHAP (for batch process
vents), and item 4 of table 3 to the CMAS NESHAP (for continuous
process vents), by reference to the HON. These proposed requirements
specify that owners and operators of process vents in EtO service must
reduce emissions of EtO by venting emissions through a closed vent
system to a flare in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.108
and 40 CFR 63.124 (see section IV.A.6 of this preamble for additional
details regarding our proposed requirements for flares that emit EtO),
or to a control device that reduces EtO by greater than or equal to
99.9 percent by weight, or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv for each
process vent or to less than 5 lb/yr for all combined process vents
within the process in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR
63.124.
The EPA is proposing to define a storage tank (vessel) ``in
ethylene oxide service'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b), by reference to the HON
(40 CFR 63.101). We are also proposing that the exemption for ``tanks
storing organic liquids containing HAP only as impurities'' listed in
the definition of ``storage tank'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b) does not apply
for storage tanks in EtO service. We are also proposing Control Option
1 for storage tanks in EtO service at 40 CFR 63.11497(e) and item 5 of
table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP, by reference to the HON. These proposed
requirements specify that owners and operators of storage tanks in EtO
service must reduce emissions of EtO by venting emissions through a
closed vent system to a flare in accordance with the requirements in 40
CFR 63.108 and 40 CFR 63.124 (see section IV.A.6 of this preamble for
additional details regarding our proposed requirements for flares that
emit EtO), or to a control device that reduces EtO by greater than or
equal to 99.9 percent by weight, or to a concentration less than 1 ppmv
for each storage tank vent in accordance with the requirements in 40
CFR 63.124.
In addition, given that 40 CFR 63.124 requires owners and operators
to comply with the HON leak inspection requirements in 40 CFR 63.148
and the delay of repair provisions associated with these inspection
requirements (i.e., 40 CFR 63.148(e)) rely on a definition for
``shutdown'' that does not include batch processes, we are also
proposing to substitute the use of ``shutdown'' with language at 40 CFR
63.11496(j)(5)(iv) and 40 CFR 63.11497(e)(5)(iv) to accommodate both
continuous and batch processes. We are proposing that for 40 CFR
63.148(e), the term ``shutdown'' for a continuous operation, means the
cessation of the unit operation for any purpose. Shutdown begins with
the initiation of steps as described in a written standard operating
procedure or shutdown plan to cease normal/stable operation (e.g.,
reducing or immediately stopping feed). For batch operations, we are
proposing that for 40 CFR 63.148(e), the term ``shutdown'' means the
cessation of a
[[Page 7957]]
batch operation except shutdown does not apply to cessation of batch
operations at the end of a campaign or between batches within a
campaign when the steps taken to cease operation are normal operations.
Finally, we are also proposing to remove the option to allow use of
a design evaluation in lieu of performance testing to demonstrate
compliance for controlling process vents and storage tanks that are in
EtO service. In addition, owners or operators that choose to control
emissions with a non-flare control device would be required to conduct
an initial performance test on each control device in EtO service to
verify performance at the required level of control, and would also be
required to conduct periodic performance testing on non-flare control
devices in EtO service every 5 years (see proposed 40 CFR 63.11496(j)
and 40 CFR 63.11497(e) by reference to 40 CFR 63.124).
4. Wastewater in EtO Service
EtO is emitted into the air from wastewater collection, storage,
and treatment systems that are uncovered or open to the atmosphere
through volatilization of the compound at the liquid surface. The rate
of volatilization is related directly to the speed of the air flow over
the water surface. We provide more details about wastewater streams,
including how the CMAS NESHAP regulates them, in our technology review
discussion (see section IV.C.5 of this preamble).
To assess what GACT standards may be appropriate for wastewater in
EtO service, we reviewed other rulemakings to identify the level of
control required for wastewater emitting EtO. As part of that review,
we identified one rule requiring control of emissions from wastewater
``in ethylene oxide service.'' In the HON rulemaking, the EPA recently
added EtO-specific requirements for wastewater streams in EtO service
(see 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024). These standards require owners and
operators to manage and treat existing and new wastewater streams with
total annual average concentration of EtO greater than or equal to 1
ppmw at any flow rate. As such, we evaluated a Control Option to
represent GACT for wastewater streams that are ``in ethylene oxide
service'' that would require owners and operators at certain CMAS
(those that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is
added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are
already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit EtO) to comply with the HON
Group 1 wastewater requirements for wastewater streams that are ``in
ethylene oxide service'' as defined by the HON (i.e., Control Option
1).
The HON specifies performance standards for treatment processes
managing Group 1 wastewater streams including performance standards for
open or closed biological treatment systems or a design steam stripper
with vent control. For APCDs (e.g., thermal oxidizers) used to control
emissions from collection system components, steam strippers, or closed
biological treatment, the HON provides owners or operators several
compliance options, including a 95 percent destruction efficiency
standard, a 20 ppmv outlet concentration standard, or design
specifications for temperature and residence time. Given the EtO
specific requirements in the HON at 40 CFR 63.138(b)(3) and (c)(3) for
wastewater streams in EtO service to reduce, by removal or destruction,
the concentration of EtO to a level less than 1 ppmw and minimal
operational differences between controlling emissions from HON CMPUs
and CMAS CMPUs, we evaluated the use of steam stripping to comply with
Control Option 1. While we acknowledge EtO can be biodegraded, the
compound is not on table 37 to subpart G of the HON suggesting that it
is not a readily biodegradable compound when using a biological
treatment method, and EtO would need to be stripped out of the
wastewater to meet the standard at 40 CFR 63.138(b)(3) and (c)(3).
Therefore, we evaluated Control Option 1 using a steam stripper
achieving a 98 percent reduction of EtO emissions (based on the
fraction removed (Fr) value of EtO \21\ in table 9 to subpart G of the
HON).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Fr is the fraction of a HAP that is stripped from
wastewater and is an indicator of the extent to which a HAP is
effectively removed during the steam stripping process, which for
EtO is 98 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find Control Option 1 to be ``generally available'' per the
language of CAA section 112(d)(5). Steam strippers are used to control
emissions from wastewater streams at sources regulated under other
rulemakings including, but not limited to, the MON and the HON. In
addition, steam stripping was evaluated as part of the original
rulemaking and is currently a method of compliance for controlling
certain CMPU wastewater streams. Given the widespread use of this
control technology in other, similar chemical manufacturing facilities,
and current applicability of the technology to certain CMAS wastewater
streams, we consider this Control Option of proposing the use of steam
strippers to control EtO emissions from wastewater to be ``generally
available.''
We reviewed the CMAS emissions inventory data (see section II.C.2
of this preamble) as well as air permits and determined that there are
4 CMAS facilities that have wastewater processes that use and emit EtO
and therefore would be impacted by Control Option 1. To evaluate the
impacts of requiring these facilities to meet Control Option 1, we used
PEPO-specific wastewater data submitted in response to the EPA's 2022
CAA section 114 request (see section II.C.3 of this preamble). We used
the PEPO-specific wastewater data rather than HON-specific data because
for EtO processes, CMAS CMPUs are more like PEPO PMPUs given that both
CMAS CMPUs and PEPO PMPUs use EtO as a reactant (often in batch
reactions to make a product), whereas HON CMPUs produce EtO and are
continuous. In addition, we removed all PEPO-specific wastewater data
that could not be representative of an area source (based on the amount
of HAP emissions that could potentially be emitted to the atmosphere
from the wastewater streams); and therefore, not representative of a
CMAS facility. We estimated costs to install a steam stripper using the
cost algorithm for wastewater stripper steam requirements used for the
development of the HON.\22\ Table 5 of this preamble presents the
nationwide impacts of Control Option 1, requiring owners and operators
to manage and treat existing and new wastewater streams with total
annual average concentration of EtO greater than or equal to 1 ppmw at
any flow rate in accordance with HON Group 1 wastewater requirements.
See the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard
Analysis for Wastewater Streams that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Clean Air
Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wastewater Systems
Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process Units at Area Sources
Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and methodologies used in
this analysis. Based on the costs and emission reductions for Control
Option 1, we are proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP for wastewater in
EtO service to reflect Control Option 1 pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(5). The
[[Page 7958]]
cost effectiveness of this Control Option is within the range of values
that have been accepted in other recent rulemakings regulating EtO
emissions, such as the commercial sterilizer rulemaking (see 89 FR
24090, April 5, 2024) \23\, and is within the range of historic cost-
effectiveness values that have been accepted for highly toxic HAP (such
as hexavalent chromium).\24\ EtO is similarly toxic due to its potency
as a carcinogen. As such, we find that this Control Option is cost
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA, 1992a. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process
Units in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry--
Background Information for Proposed Standards, Volume 1B: Control
Technologies. EPA-453/D-92-016b. November 1992; and EPA, 1992b.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry--Background
Information for Proposed Standards, Volume 1C: Model Emission
Sources. EPA-453/D-92-016c. November 1992.
\23\ See footnote 19.
\24\ See footnote 20.
Table 5--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Option 1 for Requiring Control of
Wastewater in EtO Service at Certain Facilities \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EtO emission EtO cost
Control option Total capital Total annualized reductions (tpy) effectiveness ($/
investment ($) costs ($/yr) \2\ ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 12,899,400 5,471,300 8.3 659,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit EtO.
\2\ We note that EtO emission reductions from wastewater (and subsequent cost-effectiveness values for EtO from
wastewater) differ from reductions expected to occur from reported emissions inventories due to use of model
plants, engineering assumptions made to estimate baseline emissions, and uncertainties in how fugitive
emissions may have been calculated for reported inventories compared to our model plants analysis (and are
documented in the memorandum).
The EPA is proposing to define a wastewater stream ``in ethylene
oxide service'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b), by reference to the HON (40 CFR
63.101). We are proposing Control Option 1 for all new and existing
affected sources with wastewater streams in EtO service at 40 CFR
63.11498(c) and item 3 of table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP, by reference to
the HON. These proposed requirements specify that owners and operators
of wastewater in EtO service must reduce, by removal or destruction,
the concentration of ethylene oxide in existing and new wastewater
streams (i.e., wastewater streams with total annual average
concentration of EtO greater than or equal to 1 ppmw at any flow rate)
to a level less than 1 ppmw as determined by the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.145(b) and in accordance with the Group 1 wastewater stream
requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.133 through 63.148 and the requirements
referenced therein. Additionally, we are aware that some chemical
manufacturing facilities dispose of certain wastewater streams that
contain EtO by adding those wastewaters to the cooling water of their
heat exchange systems, rather than considering those EtO-containing
streams to be potential sources of wastewater. To eliminate these types
of EtO emissions from wastewater being injected into heat exchange
systems, we are also proposing to prohibit owners and operators from
injecting water into or disposing of water through any heat exchange
system in a CMPU meeting the conditions of 40 CFR 63.11494 if the water
contains any amount of EtO, has been in contact with any process stream
containing EtO, or the water is considered wastewater as defined in 40
CFR 63.11502 (see proposed 40 CFR 63.11495(b)(4) and items 1.c and 2 of
table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP).
5. Standards for Transfer Operations That Emit EtO
The EPA includes transfer operations as part of the equipment
collection that makes up a CMPU (see 40 CFR 63.11494(b)). According to
the CMAS NESHAP, transfer operations involve loading liquid containing
organic HAP into tank trucks and rail cars from a transfer rack. This
does not include loading into other containers like cans, drums, and
totes.
The CMAS NESHAP defines a transfer rack as the system used to load
organic liquids into tank trucks and railcars at a single location.
This system includes all necessary loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff
valves, relief valves, and other piping and equipment. Transfer
equipment that do not share common piping, valves, and other equipment
are considered separate transfer racks.
The CMAS NESHAP regulates transfer operations through specific
management practices. According to 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(2), owners and
operators must use one of the following methods to control total
organic HAP emissions when transferring certain liquids (those
containing any organic HAP listed in table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV) to tank trucks or railcars: (1) submerged loading or bottom
loading; (2) routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process; (3)
vapor balancing back to the storage tank or another storage tank
connected by a common header; or (4) venting through a closed vent
system to a control device.
Since we are proposing to add EtO to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV, owners and operators of new and existing affected
sources with transferring liquids containing EtO to tank trucks or
railcars would be subject to these same management practices. We are
proposing that these management practices reflect GACT for these
transfer operations. We anticipate that all facilities that may become
subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO were to be added to table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVVVVV already use at least one of these management
practices when transferring liquids containing EtO to tank trucks or
railcars. Therefore, we do not expect any additional costs from this
proposed GACT standard.
The EPA is soliciting comments and data on the proposed transfer
operation practices.
6. Standards for Flares That Emit EtO
As previously discussed in section IV.A.3 of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing to add specific requirements for EtO to the CMAS NESHAP
for batch process vents, continuous process vents, and storage tanks in
EtO service. Each of these requirements mandates 99.9 percent control,
reduction in concentration to less than 1 ppmw, or the use of a flare.
These requirements are based on EtO-specific requirements in the MON
and HON. If a flare is used to meet the MON and HON standards for
process vents and storage tanks in EtO service, the owner or operator
must comply with several operational and monitoring requirements that
are reflective of requirements for petroleum refinery flares which
address: (1) the presence of a pilot flame; (2) visible emissions; (3)
flare tip velocity; (4) net heating value of flare combustion zone gas;
and (5) net heating value dilution parameter (if the flare actively
receives perimeter assist air). More details about these requirements
are provided in our
[[Page 7959]]
technology review discussion (see section IV.C.6 of this preamble). As
such, we evaluated the option (i.e., Control Option 1) to require
flares used to comply with the proposed GACT standards for process
vents and storage tanks in EtO service to meet the same operational and
monitoring requirements included in the MON and HON.
Control Option 1 requires various monitoring equipment (i.e.,
hydrogen analyzers, calorimeters, and flow monitors) be installed on
the flare vent gas stream header and/or steam- or air-assist header.
Flares are used to control emissions from sources such as process vents
and storage tanks regulated under other rulemakings including, but not
limited to, the HON and the MON. The HON and MON apply to chemical
manufacturing facilities and already require these types of monitoring
equipment. Given the widespread use of this monitoring equipment in
other, similar chemical manufacturing facilities, we consider Control
Option 1, which includes the use of hydrogen analyzers, calorimeters,
and flow monitors, to be ``generally available'' per the language of
CAA section 112(d)(5).
Using information from the CMAS emissions inventory data (see
section II.C.2 of this preamble), we estimated there are only two
flares at two different facilities that would be impacted by Control
Option 1 (one of the facilities is already subject to the CMAS NESHAP
and the other facility would become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO
is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed). We
estimated costs for each flare for a given facility, considering
current monitoring systems already installed on each individual flare.
Given that the same type of equipment is used for flares in the CMAS
categories and for the petroleum refinery sector, we estimated costs
for any additional monitoring systems needed based on installed costs
received from petroleum refineries. If those installed costs were
unavailable, we estimated costs based on vendor-purchased equipment.
The baseline emission estimate and the emission reductions achieved by
Control Option 1 were estimated based on the CMAS emissions inventory
data (see section II.C.2 of this preamble) and current vent gas and
steam flow data submitted by industry representatives.\25\ The results
of the impact estimates are summarized in table 6 of this preamble for
Control Option 1. See the document titled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Flares that Emit Ethylene Oxide
and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Flares Associated with
Chemical Manufacturing Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the
CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking, for
details on the assumptions and methodologies used in this analysis.
Based on the costs and emission reductions for Control Option 1, we are
proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP for flares used to comply with the
proposed GACT standards for process vents and storage tanks in EtO
service to reflect Control Option 1 pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5).
The cost-effectiveness of this Control Option is within the range of
values that have been accepted in other recent rulemakings regulating
EtO emissions such as the commercial sterilizer rulemaking (see 89 FR
24090, April 5, 2024) \26\ and is within range of historic cost-
effectiveness values that have been accepted for highly toxic HAP (such
as hexavalent chromium).\27\ EtO is similarly toxic due to its potency
as a carcinogen. As such, we find that this Control Option is cost-
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ To estimate the baseline control efficiency of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and HAP anticipated by applying Control
Option 1, we reviewed data submitted to the EPA in 2011 by the
American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Chemistry Council
(ACC), and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
(NPRA), now known as the American Fuels and Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM). This dataset includes detailed hourly
operational information for 38 steam-assisted flares, characterizing
different operating conditions by waste gas flow rate, steam flow
rate, waste gas composition, and duration of that operating
condition.
\26\ See footnote 19.
\27\ See footnote 20.
Table 6--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Option 1 for Requiring the Suite of Operational and Monitoring Requirements for
Flares That Emit EtO at CMAS Facilities \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EtO cost
Control option Total capital Total annualized VOC emission EtO emission effectiveness ($/
investment ($) costs ($/yr) reductions (tpy) reductions (tpy) ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................ 3,770,000 960,000 12.8 1.56 606,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as proposed, or are
already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emit EtO.
We are proposing Control Option 1 for flares at new and existing
affected sources that are used to comply with the proposed GACT
standards for process vents and storage tanks in EtO service at item
4.a of table 2 to the CMAS NESHAP, item 4.a of table 3 to the CMAS
NESHAP, item 5.a of table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP, and 40 CFR
63.11497(f)(5), all by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.108 and 40 CFR
63.124). These proposed requirements specify that owners and operators
that choose to use a flare to comply with the proposed standards for
process vents and storage tanks in EtO service as described in section
IV.A.3 of this preamble must vent emissions through a closed vent
system and meet the applicable requirements for flares as specified in
40 CFR 63.670 and 63.671, including the provisions in tables 12 and 13
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (i.e., the suite of operational and
monitoring requirements for refinery flares). In addition, we are
proposing amendments to 40 CFR 63.11501(c)(2)(iii) and (c)(4)(vii) to
align the recordkeeping requirements with this proposed Control Option.
We also note that we are proposing an LDAR program for equipment
leaks at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6) and (7) (see sections IV.A.1 and IV.C.1
of this preamble). Part of this LDAR program requires owners and
operators that vent equipment leak emissions through a closed vent
system to a flare used to control equipment leaks in EtO service, to
comply with the same suite of operational and monitoring requirements
for flares as we are proposing for flares used to comply with the
proposed GACT standards for process vents and storage tanks in EtO
service (see proposed 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(7)). Given that we only
identified two flares in the CMAS emissions inventory data that emit
EtO and we have already estimated impacts for these flares to comply
with Control
[[Page 7960]]
Option 1, we do not expect any additional costs from this proposed GACT
standard.
7. Standards for Fenceline Monitoring EtO
As discussed in section IV.C.7 of this preamble as well, fenceline
monitoring is the practice by which monitors are placed around the
perimeter of a facility to measure the concentration of certain
pollutants. When required in conjunction with root cause analysis and
corrective action, fenceline monitoring can reduce uncertainties
associated with fugitive emissions estimation and characterization.
This section of the preamble is limited to the discussion of fenceline
monitoring for EtO. Section IV.C.7 of this preamble provides details on
why we are not proposing fenceline monitoring for CMPUs using,
producing, storing, or emitting other table 1 HAP.
In the promulgated amendments to the HON, the EPA finalized a new
EPA method (EPA Method 327 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to monitor
the concentration of EtO at facility fenceline locations. EPA Method
327 provides procedures for canister sampling and analysis for
measuring trace levels of targeted VOC (including organic HAP) in air.
EPA Method 327 collects ambient air samples using specially prepared
and pre-cleaned evacuated stainless-steel canisters. For analysis, the
method specifies procedures for concentrating the target VOC (i.e.,
EtO) in a known volume of air drawn from the canister, desorbing the
target VOC from the preconcentrator, and determining the concentration
of the target VOC using a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer. The EPA
continues to investigate cost-effective monitoring methods and
technologies that could offer improved sensitivity, improved time
resolution, or increased time integration.
As part of the HON, fenceline monitoring in combination with root
cause analysis and corrective action was required for affected sources
using, producing, storing, or emitting EtO. The program requires a
cannister sample to be collected in accordance with EPA Method 327 for
one 24-hour period every five days. This monitoring frequency is
necessary to ensure that all onsite processes are monitored regularly
while maintaining the cost effectiveness of implementing a canister
monitoring network. A sampling frequency of every 5 days also ensures
that the annual average concentration derived from the fenceline data
are indicative of the actual average emissions from the site by
reducing the possibility that sampling occurs only during emission
spikes. Once samples are analyzed, the lowest sample value for EtO is
subtracted from the highest sample value for EtO, generating a
[Delta]c. This approach subtracts the estimated contributions from
background emissions that do not originate from the facility. The owner
or operator would average the [Delta]c for the most recent year of
samples (73 sampling periods) to calculate an annual average [Delta]c
on a rolling basis (i.e., calculate a new annual average [Delta]c every
5 days using data from the most recent 73 sampling periods). The owner
or operator would compare this rolling annual average [Delta]c against
the concentration action level for EtO. The action level for EtO
established as part of the HON is 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) based on three times the representative detection limit
(RDL) for EtO.
If the annual average [Delta]c for a facility exceeds the action
level, then root cause analysis and corrective action must be
performed. Root cause analysis is an assessment conducted through a
process of investigation to determine the primary underlying cause and
other contributing causes of an exceedance of the action level. If the
underlying causes of the action level exceedance are deemed to be from
sources under the control of the owner or operator, the owner or
operator is required to take corrective action to address the
underlying cause of the exceedance and to bring the annual average
[Delta]c back below the action level as expeditiously as possible.
Completion of the root cause analysis and initial corrective action is
required within 45 days of determining that the annual average [Delta]c
exceeded the action level. If the owner or operator requires longer
than 45 days to implement the corrective actions identified by the root
cause analysis, the owner or operator is required to submit a
corrective action plan no later than 60 days after completion of the
root cause analysis.
After completion of the initial corrective action, if the [Delta]c
for the next three sampling periods for samples collected by EPA Method
327 are below the action level, then the corrective action is assumed
to have fixed the problem, and the owner and/or operator has no further
obligation for additional corrective action. However, if the [Delta]c
for the subsequent sampling periods after initial corrective action is
greater than the action level, then the owner or operator must submit a
corrective action plan and schedule for implementing design, operation,
and maintenance changes to eliminate as quickly as possible and prevent
recurrence of the primary cause and other contributing causes to the
exceedance of the action level, to reduce annual average concentrations
below the action level. If the owner or operator cannot determine the
root cause of the exceedance within 30 days of determining that there
was an exceedance of an action level, the proposed revisions require
use of real-time sampling techniques (e.g., mobile gas chromatographs)
to determine the root cause of the exceedance. While the action
level(s) are based on annual average concentrations, once an action
level is exceeded, each sampling period that exceeds the action level
contributes to the [Delta]c remaining above the action level. An
investigation must be conducted to determine the root cause and, if
appropriate, to correct the root cause expeditiously to bring the
annual average [Delta]c below the action level.
Given the similarities between certain sources subject to the HON
and CMAS CMPUs in EtO service, the threat of adverse effect on human
health (as discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble), and the
observed inconsistency between modeling the fenceline concentrations of
sources subject to the HON and actual fenceline concentration
measurements,\28\ we assessed whether the same fenceline monitoring
program was appropriate. We find fenceline monitoring via EPA Method
327 to be ``generally available'' per the language of CAA section
112(d)(5). Canister measurements for EtO have been possible since 1999
via Method TO-15. While EPA Method 327 was finalized in May 2024 as
part of the revisions to the HON (see 89 FR 42932); many of the
practices, media, and instrumentation necessary for the analysis have
been available since 2019 via an update to Method TO-15, Method TO-15A.
EPA Method 327 codifies the best practices of Method TO-15A and
mandates enhanced QA/QC approaches, such as a regular validation of the
sampling media, site verification for the sampling, defined sample
holding times, and ongoing field and spike blanks to evaluate
performance. In addition, development of logistics and practices to
support EPA Method 327 laboratory analysis will also be occurring
alongside other, similar chemical manufacturing rulemakings. Lastly, as
a practice, placing monitors around a facility to measure fugitive
emissions has been required as part of
[[Page 7961]]
the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) since
2018. Given the monitoring technology has been available for several
decades and the methodology, while new, is an adjustment to a well
understood 2019 method to ensure the validity of samples, we find EPA
Method 327 to be ``generally available'' per the language of CAA
section 112(d)(5). Both root cause analysis and corrective action
already take place at facilities where large emission events occur.
When an event occurs, the source will be determined and will be fixed.
This is a regular part of operation and thus root cause analysis and
corrective action are already available to every facility potentially
impacted by the proposed fenceline monitoring management practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPA, 2023. Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for Fenceline Monitoring located in the SOCMI Source Category
that are Associated with Processes Subject to HON and for Fenceline
Monitoring that are Associated with Processes Subject to Group I
Polymers and Resins NESHAP. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730-
0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 33 facilities within the proposed source category, Chemical
Manufacturing with Ethylene Oxide, EtO is ubiquitous and should be
present in most streams associated with CMPUs in EtO service. As such,
for these facilities, EtO can act as a surrogate pollutant to track and
limit overall fugitive emissions of HAP at the fenceline. Therefore,
using information from the CMAS emissions inventory (see section II.C.2
of this preamble), we modeled what the fenceline concentrations for EtO
would be for the 33 facilities identified to use, produce, store, or
emit EtO based on whole facility emissions when considering those
options proposed in sections IV.A.1 through IV.A.6 and section IV.A.8.
The modeling showed that 32 of the 33 facilities had EtO fenceline
concentrations at or below 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, three times the RDL for
EtO and the action level finalized as part of the HON. In addition, the
one facility that was modeled to have a fenceline concentration greater
than 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ was identified as having a high degree of
uncertainty associated with their emissions inventory as the facility
only reported a single EtO record. In addition to revisions made to the
baseline data, post-control emission reductions were established using
state permitting and approximate impacts (for additional details on
facility specific adjustments to emissions, see appendix 1 of the
document entitled Risk Assessment for the Chemical Manufacturing Area
Source (CMAS) Category in Support of the 2025 Technology Review for the
Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking). While
exact emission reductions cannot be calculated due to the nature of
fugitive emissions and uniqueness of each root cause analysis and
corrective action performed as part of the fenceline monitoring
program, we anticipate there will be EtO emission reductions associated
with fenceline monitoring.
The cost of the fenceline monitoring program is shown in table 7 of
this preamble. We estimated the cost required for each impacted
facility to build the necessary housing for the cannisters, purchase
and install the cannisters, and continually monitor the fenceline
concentration of EtO. See the document titled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis and CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for Fenceline Monitoring for Chemical Manufacturing Process
Units Associated with the Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking, for additional
details on the analysis and methodology associated with these costs.
Based on the costs and need to monitor for fugitive emissions of
EtO, we are proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP to require fenceline
monitoring for EtO if a new or existing affected source uses, produces,
stores, or emits EtO pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5).
We are soliciting comment on the proposed fenceline monitoring
program and the supporting analysis including the costs, benefits, and
underlying assumptions.
Table 7--Nationwide Cost Impacts for Requiring Fenceline Monitoring for
CMAS That Use, Produce, Store, or Emit EtO at CMAS Facilities \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Number of CMAS facilities impacted Total capital annualized
investment ($) costs ($/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.................................... 488,000 20,990,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities that would either become subject to the CMAS NESHAP if
EtO is added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, as
proposed, or are already subject to the CMAS NESHAP and emits EtO.
We are proposing to require fenceline monitoring for CMAS using,
producing, storing, or emitting EtO at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(8) by
reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.184).
A primary requirement for a fenceline monitoring system is that it
provides adequate spatial coverage for determination of representative
pollutant concentrations at the boundary of the facility. In an ideal
scenario, owners or operators would place fenceline monitors so that
any fugitive plume originating within the facility would have a high
probability of intersecting one or more monitors, regardless of wind
direction. Therefore, by referencing 40 CFR 63.184(b)(3) via 40 CFR
63.11495(a)(8) we propose that each facility would place eight
canisters evenly spaced on the monitoring perimeter. The monitoring
perimeter may be the facility fenceline or may be inside the facility
fenceline, provided all sources of EtO are contained within the
perimeter. The EPA is also proposing to require that facilities move
the canister sampling locations with alternating sampling periods to
ensure complete spatial coverage of the facility. For facilities with
perimeters less than or equal to 5,000 meters, all eight sampling
points would be monitored during each sampling period. For facilities
with perimeters greater than 5,000 meters but less than or equal to
10,000 meters, 16 sampling points would be required; for facilities
with perimeters greater than 10,000 meters, 24 sampling points would be
required. For facilities with EtO emission sources that are not
contained within one contiguous area, the EPA is proposing monitoring
of these secondary areas as well, with the size of the secondary area
dictating the number of canisters.
In addition, we are proposing to allow the subtraction of offsite
interfering sources (as they are not within the control of the owner or
operator) through site-specific monitoring plans, but we are not
providing this option for onsite, non-source category emissions. We
based the action level on facility-wide emissions; therefore, we
considered these non-source category sources in its development.
Applying the fenceline standard to the whole facility will also limit
emissions of EtO from all sources and provide more certainty in
decisions being made as to whether the entire facility emissions align
with what is expected from the EPA's analysis. It will also provide
assurance to fenceline communities that emission reductions are
achieved and maintained.
The EPA is also proposing, by reference to the HON at 40 CFR
63.182(e), that owners or operators report fenceline data on a
quarterly basis. Each report would contain the results for each sample
where the field portion of sampling is completed by the end of the
quarter, as well as for associated field and method blanks (i.e., each
report would contain data for 18 canister sampling periods). Owners or
operators would report these data electronically to the EPA within 45
days after the end of each quarterly period. See section IV.D.1 of this
preamble for further discussion on electronic reporting and section
IV.E.1 of this preamble for further discussion on the compliance dates
being proposed.
[[Page 7962]]
8. PRDs in EtO Service
The CMAS NESHAP regulates PRDs through equipment leak management
practices. These practices require owners and operators to conduct
quarterly sensory-based inspections (using sight, sound, or smell) to
ensure that equipment (including PRDs) is ``sound and free of leaks.''
However, these provisions do not apply to an emissions release from a
PRD (see section IV.B.2 of this preamble for more detail).
The EPA is proposing an LDAR program (using EPA Method 21) for all
equipment in organic HAP service (see section IV.C.1 of this preamble).
Additionally, management practices for PRD releases are being proposed
(see section IV.B.2 of the preamble). A 2023 study at an area source
chemical manufacturing facility indicated that EtO PRD releases because
of railcar switchover contributed to elevated levels of EtO at the
facility's fenceline.\29\ If those emissions had not been released to
the atmosphere, the emissions would be characterized as process vent
emissions and potentially subject to the proposed provisions in section
IV.A.3 of this preamble. Given that neither the equipment leaks nor the
process vents analyses account for the episodic nature of PRD releases
and the observed need via the 2023 study, it is reasonable to consider
a management practice regulating PRDs in EtO service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The study, Assessment of chemical facility ethylene oxide
emissions using mobile and multipoint monitoring, focused on
measuring the concentration of EtO at a chemical manufacturer's
fenceline. Elevated levels of EtO were measured nearest sources of
ground level fugitive emissions such as wastewater outfall and
during periods of irregular operation via PRD releases. The complete
study can be found and read here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2023.100214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess appropriate GACT standards for EtO releases from PRDs, we
reviewed other rulemakings and identified two rules with requirements
for PRDs ``in ethylene oxide service.'' The EPA recently added
requirements to the MON and HON making any release event from a PRD in
EtO service a deviation \30\ from the work practice standards for PRD
releases (see 85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020, and 89 FR 42932, May 16,
2024, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The current HON rule text does not define or use the term
``deviation'' and instead uses the term ``violation.'' Given that
both the CMAS NESHAP and the MON rule text define and uses the term
``deviation'' to describe emissions events, we believe it is more
appropriate to continue to use the term ``deviation'' (in lieu of
``violation'') in all of the CMAS rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these EtO specific requirements in the MON and HON for PRDs
in EtO service, the minimal operational differences between PRDs at
MON, SOCMI, and CMAS facilities, and to ensure that EtO is not released
to atmosphere from a PRD, we are also proposing at 40 CFR
63.11495(a)(7), by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)(v)(D)),
that any release event from a PRD in EtO service at a new or existing
affected source is a deviation of the standard. We do not expect any
additional costs from this proposed GACT standard.
B. What are our other proposed decisions regarding GACT standards for
CMAS, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
In addition to the GACT standards we are proposing for certain
emission sources that emit EtO as discussed in section IV.A of this
preamble, we are also proposing GACT standards for pressure vessels and
PRDs as described in sections IV.B.1 and IV.B.2 of this preamble,
respectively. In addition, we are proposing in section IV.B.3 of this
preamble to clarify regulatory provisions for vent control bypasses for
closed vent systems containing bypass lines.
1. Pressure Vessels
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing new
requirements for pressure vessels that are associated with processes
subject to the CMAS NESHAP. The EPA is proposing to define pressure
vessel at 40 CFR 63.11502(a), by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.101),
to mean ``a storage vessel that is used to store liquids or gases and
is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of compression of
the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel during filling of the
pressure vessel to its design capacity.'' To eliminate any ambiguity in
applicability or control requirements, the EPA is also proposing at 40
CFR 63.11502(b) to remove the exemption for ``pressure vessels designed
to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals (kPa) and without emissions
to the atmosphere'' from the definition of storage tank. This long-
standing exemption is ambiguous with respect to what ``without
emissions to the atmosphere'' means. For example, most pressure vessels
have relief devices that allow for venting when pressure exceeds
setpoints. In many cases, these vents are routed to control devices;
however, control devices are not completely effective (e.g., achieve
95-percent control), and therefore there are emissions to the
atmosphere from these pressure vessels, even if they are controlled.
There are also instances where other components in pressure systems may
allow for fugitive releases because of leaks from fittings or cooling
systems. These events arguably are ``emissions to the atmosphere'' and
therefore it is likely that even if the CMAS NESHAP maintained this
exemption, owners and operators of pressure vessels would still have
uncertainty regarding whether they were subject to substantive
requirements. Therefore, the proposed revisions remove the ambiguity
associated with the exemption and set new GACT standards intended to
limit emissions to the atmosphere from pressure vessels storing organic
HAP with capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons at new and
existing affected sources. We are proposing the same standards for
pressure vessels of any capacity and vapor pressure storing EtO such
that it can be considered to be a storage tank in EtO service. We are
also clarifying in the definition of CMPU at 40 CFR 63.11494(b) that
the collection of equipment that is part of a CMPU includes pressure
vessels.
We estimate a pressure vessel is located at 15 of the 247 CMAS
facilities given that these 15 facilities reported 1,3-butadiene
emissions from processes subject to the CMAS NESHAP, and this chemical
is stored in pressure vessels. We excluded CMAS facilities that may
have pressure vessels storing EtO given that we are proposing more
stringent standards for connectors in EtO service, gas/vapor and light
liquid valves in EtO service, and light liquid pumps in EtO service
(see section IV.A.1 of this preamble). Using information from a 2012
analysis that identified developments for storage vessels at chemical
manufacturing facilities and petroleum refineries,\31\ we estimate a
total HAP emission reduction of 2.24 tpy for all affected pressure
vessels associated with processes subject to the CMAS NESHAP (assuming
10 percent of all CMAS pressure vessels storing 1,3-butadiene would
have components that leak). The nationwide capital cost for the
proposed pressure vessel LDAR requirements for the CMAS NESHAP is about
$3,800 and the annualized capital cost is $3,330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Randall, 2012. Memorandum from Randall, D., RTI
International to Parsons, N., EPA/OAQPS. Survey of Control
Technology for Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage
Vessel Control Options. January 20, 2012. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the costs and emission reductions, we are proposing LDAR
requirements at 40 CFR 63.11497(f) and items 6 and 7 of table 5 to the
CMAS NESHAP that are based on similar no-detectable emission
requirements required for closed vent systems in most chemical sector
NESHAP, including but not limited to the HON and MON. We
[[Page 7963]]
are proposing that these LDAR requirements for pressure vessels reflect
GACT at new and existing affected sources. We did not identify any
additional options beyond this for controlling emissions from pressure
vessels. The requirements would apply to all new and existing affected
sources and impose a standard that requires no detectable emissions at
all times (i.e., owners and operators would be required to meet a leak
definition of 500 ppmv at each point on the pressure vessel where total
organic HAP could potentially be emitted); require initial and annual
leak monitoring using EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7;
and require routing organic HAP through a closed vent system to a
control device (i.e., no releases to the atmosphere through a pressure
vessel's PRD). These proposed LDAR requirements would also subject
connectors in EtO service, gas/vapor or light liquid valves in EtO
service, and light liquid pumps in EtO service to more stringent LDAR
requirements under the proposed EtO equipment leak standards.
See the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT
Standard Analysis for Pressure Vessels Associated with Processes
Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and methodologies used in
this analysis.
2. PRDs
The CMAS NESHAP regulates PRDs through equipment leak management
practices. These practices require owners and operators to conduct
quarterly sensory-based inspections (using sight, sound, or smell) to
ensure that a PRD is ``sound and free of leaks'' (see 40 CFR
63.11495(a)(3)). These inspections typically occur when the PRD is
seated, as PRDs are designed to open only during a pressure release
(i.e., when the system pressure exceeds the PRD's set pressure).
The CMAS NESHAP does not explicitly regulate atmospheric pressure
releases, regardless of whether they are single or multiple releases
over time. Consequently, no CMAS facility is subject to numeric
emission limits for PRDs that vent to the atmosphere. It is impractical
to measure emissions from PRDs that release to the atmosphere, making
numeric emission limits inappropriate. However, the EPA has included
work practice standards that regulate atmospheric pressure releases
from PRDs in other chemical sector NESHAP, such as the EMACT standards
(85 FR 40386, July 6, 2020; see 40 CFR 63.1107(h)(3)), the MON (85 FR
49084, August 20, 2020; see 40 CFR 63.2480(e)(3)), and the HON and
Group I Polymers and Resins Industry (P&R I) NESHAP (89 FR 42932, May
16, 2024; see 40 CFR 63.165(e)(3)). The EPA also added PRD work
practice standards to the petroleum refinery NESHAP for similar reasons
(81 FR 45241, December 1, 2015; see 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)). These PRD
work practice standards (in all these listed NESHAP) require owners and
operators to: (1) implement at least three prevention measures; \32\
(2) perform root cause analysis and corrective action if a PRD releases
emissions directly to the atmosphere; and (3) monitor PRDs using a
system that can identify and record the time and duration of each
pressure release and notify operators when a pressure release occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Examples of prevention measures include the following: Flow
indicators, level indicators, temperature indicators, pressure
indicators, routine inspection and maintenance programs, operator
training, inherently safer designs, safety instrumentation systems,
deluge systems, and staged relief systems where the initial PRD
discharges to a control system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We assessed whether the same PRD work practice standards, already
included in the previously mentioned NESHAPs, represent GACT (i.e., in
the form of management practices) for CMAS. These standards would
regulate emissions from CMAS PRDs during a pressure release. The PRD
work practice standards require monitoring systems that can alert an
owner or operator when a PRD release occurs. We find this equipment to
be ``generally available'' according to CAA section 112(d)(5). As
noted, this type of monitoring equipment is already mandated under
other chemical sector regulations, including the HON and the MON. Given
its widespread use in similar chemical manufacturing facilities, we
consider the PRD work practice standards, which include the use of
monitoring systems capable of alerting an owner or operator when a PRD
release occurs, to be ``generally available.''
The cost for CMAS facilities to implement a management practice
identical to the work practice standard in the HON and MON and install
monitors for PRDs that vent to the atmosphere is based on the number of
PRDs at each facility. However, we do not have actual equipment counts
for CMAS facilities. To estimate the number of PRDs at CMAS facilities
nationwide, we used HON-specific PRD data that was submitted in
response to the EPA's 2022 CAA section 114 request (see section II.C.3
of this preamble). We calculated an average of 14 atmospheric PRDs in
organic HAP service per CMAS CMPU. Multiplying this average by the
total CMAS processes nationwide (247, assuming one CMPU per CMAS
facility), we estimated there are 3,458 atmospheric PRDs in organic HAP
service nationwide. We excluded 33 facilities \33\ from this analysis
given that we anticipate that these facilities are likely to only
operate PRDs in EtO service that already have PRD monitoring installed.
We used work practice costs from a 2015 memorandum \34\ on PRD impacts
for petroleum refineries to estimate costs for implementing at least
three prevention measures and performing root cause analysis and
corrective action at CMAS facilities. Similarly, based on the HON-
specific PRD data from the EPA's 2022 CAA section 114 request, we
calculated an average of three atmospheric PRDs in organic HAP service
per CMAS CMPU that have a monitoring system installed capable of
identifying releases and recording the time and duration of each
pressure release. Therefore, multiplying the average of 11 (14
atmospheric PRDs less the three that already have monitoring systems
installed) atmospheric PRDs in organic HAP service per CMAS CMPU that
do not have a monitoring system by the total CMAS processes nationwide
(247, assuming one CMPU per CMAS facility), we estimated that of the
3,458 PRDs in organic HAP service nationwide, 2,717 PRDs in organic HAP
service nationwide vent to the atmosphere without a device or
monitoring system capable of identifying releases and recording the
time and duration of each pressure release. We then used PRD monitor
costs from a 2017 memorandum \35\ on PRD options for off-site waste and
recovery operations to estimate the costs for installing PRD monitors
at CMAS facilities. Based on our cost assumptions, the nationwide
capital cost for complying with the PRD work practice requirements for
the CMAS NESHAP (in the form of management practices) is $15.9 million,
with annualized capital costs of $4.7 million. This translates to
approximately $64,300 in total capital investment and $19,200 in total
annual cost per CMAS
[[Page 7964]]
facility. We are unable to estimate HAP reductions from requiring
owners and operators to comply with these management practices because
PRD pressure releases can occur as single or multiple events over time.
In other words, these releases can result from system overpressure
caused by operator error, malfunctions such as power or equipment
failures, or other unexpected causes that necessitate immediate venting
of gas from process equipment to prevent safety hazards or equipment
damage; all of which are too difficult to predict. Even so, we
anticipate that implementing these additional PRD management practices,
along with the proposed equipment leak LDAR program for PRDs (see
section IV.C.1 of this preamble), will achieve significantly greater
emission reductions than the equipment leak management practices
currently required by the CMAS NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ These facilities are already subject to, or may become
subject to, the CMAS NESHAP if EtO were to be added to table 1 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV.
\34\ EPA, 2015. Coburn, Jeff, RTI International. Pressure Relief
Device Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule. July
30, 2015. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
\35\ EPA, 2017. Carey, Angela, EPA/OAQPS. Pressure Relief Device
Control Options and Impacts for Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations (OSWRO). June 26, 2017. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing new
requirements for PRDs that are associated with processes subject to the
CMAS NESHAP. We are proposing PRD management practices for all new and
existing affected sources at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6), by reference to the
HON (40 CFR 63.165(e)(1) through (8)), that require owners and
operators to: (1) operate each PRD in organic HAP gas or vapor service
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as
measured by the method specified in 40 CFR 63.180(c); (2) conduct
instrument monitoring no later than 5 calendar days after the PRD
returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service following a pressure
release to verify that the PRD is operating with an instrument reading
of less than 500 ppm, or if applicable, install a replacement disk as
soon as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than 5
calendar days after the pressure release; (3) implement at least three
prevention measures; (4) perform root cause analysis and corrective
action if a PRD releases emissions directly to the atmosphere; and (5)
monitor PRDs using a system that can identify and record the time and
duration of each pressure release and notify operators when a pressure
release occurs. The EPA is also proposing to define ``pressure relief
device or valve'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(a), by reference to the HON (40
CFR 63.101), to mean ``a valve, rupture disk, or similar device used
only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas from process
equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. A PRD
discharge can result from an operator error, a malfunction such as a
power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected cause. Such
devices include conventional, spring-actuated relief valves, balanced
bellows relief valves, pilot-operated relief valves, rupture disks, and
breaking, buckling, or shearing pin devices. Devices that are actuated
either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square
inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.'' In
addition, the EPA is proposing to define ``pressure release'' at 40 CFR
63.11502(a), by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.101), to mean ``the
emission of materials resulting from the system pressure being greater
than the set pressure of the pressure relief device. This release can
be one release or a series of releases over a short time period.''
See the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT
Standard Analysis for Pressure Relief Devices Associated with Processes
Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and methodologies used in
this analysis. We solicit comments on the proposed management practice
for PRDs and assumptions associated with the analysis.
3. Closed Vent System Containing Bypass Lines
For a closed vent system containing bypass lines that can divert
the stream away from the APCD to the atmosphere, the CMAS NESHAP
requires the owner or operator to either: (1) install, maintain, and
operate a continuous parametric monitoring system for flow on the
bypass line that is capable of detecting whether a vent stream flow is
present at least once every hour, or (2) secure the bypass line valve
in the non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration. Under option 2, the CMAS NESHAP also requires owners or
operators to inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once per
month to verify the valve is maintained in the non-diverting position
(e.g., for more details see items 1.a and 1.b of tables 2 and 3 to the
CMAS NESHAP and items 1.b and 1.c of table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP, which
all reference provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS that ultimately
point to bypass monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.983(a)(3)). To
expressly prohibit bypassing an APCD at affected sources, as implied by
option 2, we are proposing that an owner or operator may not bypass the
APCD at any time and that a bypass is a violation (see proposed 40 CFR
63.11495(e)), and owners and operators must estimate, maintain records,
and report the quantity of organic HAP released (see proposed 40 CFR
63.11501(c)(10) and (d)(10)). We are proposing these revisions to
ensure continuous compliance with the GACT standards because bypassing
an APCD could result in a release of regulated organic HAP to the
atmosphere that would be required to be controlled under the existing
GACT standards in the CMAS NESHAP. We are also proposing that the use
of a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve on open-ended valves or
lines (following the requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2),
(b), and (c) or following requirements codified in another regulation
that are the same as 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c)) is sufficient
to prevent a bypass. We solicit comments on these proposed revisions.
In addition, we are proposing to remove the 40 CFR 63.107(h)(9)
exemption for ``a gas stream exiting an analyzer'' from the definition
of continuous process vent at 40 CFR 63.11502(b) and we are proposing
at 40 CFR 63.11495(e) to not exempt analyzer vents from the bypass
requirements. As such, we are proposing to require that these kinds of
vents meet the standards applicable to process vents at all times.
Analyzer vents, or ``onstream analyzers,'' generally refer to sampling
systems that directly feed to an analyzer located at a process unit and
venting is expected to be routine (continuous or daily intermittent
venting). We also note that sampling connection systems for CMPUs will
be required to be part of a closed loop, closed purge, or closed vent
system under our proposed equipment leak standards (e.g., 40 CFR
63.166(a), see section IV.C.1 of this preamble for further details). In
these applications, the analyzer vent would not be a bypass of
emissions subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.11495 through
63.11498, rather the analyzer vent would be a process vent itself, thus
engineering calculations would be used to determine if this vent is a
process vent requiring control as specified in tables 2 through 4 to
the CMAS NESHAP. In rare instances, the owner or operator may classify
a release point on a gaseous vent system associated with a CMPU as an
``analyzer vent''. In this case, the analyzer vent when open acts as a
bypass line (allowing direct atmospheric release) of a process vent
stream. These examples demonstrate that depending on the circumstance,
an analyzer vent could be construed as a process vent or a bypass line.
Thus, we see no reason to categorically allow use of analyzer vents to
bypass controls required for
[[Page 7965]]
emissions subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.11495 through
63.11498.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, the technology
review for the CMAS NESHAP focused on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the NESHAP was promulgated in 2009. In conducting
the technology review, we reviewed various sources of information
related to the emissions from chemical manufacturing operations and
other relevant information such as control technologies applied,
management practices used, processes, and monitoring approaches.
Through searches of these data sources, we identified, evaluated, and
considered several developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies. As discussed below, these include developments and
improvements that could result in the addition of emission limits,
management practices, and other emission reduction requirements, as
well as revised compliance assurance measures. We analyzed costs and
emissions reductions for each emission source and determined cost-
effectiveness (annualized cost per ton of emissions reduction) on a HAP
basis. The data, analyses, results, and proposed decisions pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) are presented for each emission source in
sections IV.C.1 through IV.C.7 of this preamble.
Based on this review, the EPA is proposing amendments to the CMAS
NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) that improve monitoring of
leaks from equipment and heat exchange systems and revises the
definition of ``metal HAP process vent.'' We are not proposing any
changes to the CMAS NESHAP for storage tanks and wastewater based on
our technology review given that we did not identify any cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for these
emission sources that achieve a greater HAP emission reduction beyond
the emission reduction already required by the CMAS NESHAP.
1. Equipment Leaks
Emissions from equipment leaks occur in the form of gases or
liquids that escape to the atmosphere through connection points (e.g.,
threaded connectors) or through the moving parts of different
components (e.g., agitators, compressors, PRDs, pumps, valves) and
certain types of process equipment. Each component type has a unique
manner in which emissions are released (e.g., connectors may leak if
the threads become damaged or corroded or if not tightened
sufficiently, pumps can leak at the point of contact between the moving
shaft and stationary casing, valves can leak through the seal around
the valve stem).
The CMAS NESHAP requires that facilities conduct quarterly
inspections of process vessels and equipment for each CMPU in organic
HAP service or metal HAP service. Equipment is defined as ``each pump,
compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection
system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, and instrumentation
system in or associated with a CMPU.'' The inspections rely on AVO
detection methods to determine whether process vessels and equipment
are free of leaks. The CMAS NESHAP also allows instrument monitoring
(i.e., use EPA Method 21 with a leak definition of 500 ppmv) in lieu of
AVO methods; or, facilities may use EPA Method 21 to confirm the
presence of HAP for leaks identified using AVO methods.
To identify developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies since the GACT standards were established, we reviewed
subsequent regulatory efforts. After reviewing multiple regulations, we
identified developments in LDAR program practices in the form of
specific leak definitions and monitoring frequencies for LDAR programs
that use EPA Method 21 monitoring that are different than those
evaluated during the original CMAS rulemaking. We used the HON and MON
as initial points of reference to identify developments, since these
rules apply to major source chemical manufacturing facilities which are
similar to CMAS facilities. The HON and MON require EPA Method 21
monitoring for specific components at varying leak definitions (from
500 ppmv to 10,000 ppmv) and frequencies (monthly monitoring to
monitoring every 4 years if few leaks are identified). We also reviewed
the Gasoline Distribution area source rule, which recently undertook a
similar technology review for equipment leaks where the EPA finalized
an LDAR program that requires annual monitoring using EPA Method 21 at
a leak definition of 10,000 ppmv in lieu of only AVO methods. We used
the Gasoline Distribution LDAR program, which requires annual
monitoring at a leak definition of 10,000 ppmv, as the starting option
(i.e., Control Option 1). We then considered two additional options
that would impose more stringent requirements that would allow us to
assess the impacts of more frequent monitoring (i.e., Control Option 2
requiring semiannual monitoring) and a lower leak definition (i.e.,
Control Option 3 requiring a leak definition of 500 ppmv). We also
evaluated the key component types for the LDAR programs (i.e.,
connectors, valves, pumps) and did not consider an option where
connectors were not monitored. The following summarize the three
equipment leak control options that we evaluated for this technology
review: \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Each equipment leak control option that we evaluated also
includes the HON LDAR requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.164 for
compressors, 40 CFR 63.166 for sampling connection systems, 40 CFR
63.167 for open-ended valves or lines, 40 CFR 63.169 for equipment
in heavy liquid service, 40 CFR 63.173 for agitators in G/V or LL
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option 1 (for connectors in gas and vapor (G/V)
service or in light liquid (LL) service, valves in G/V or LL service,
and pumps in LL service): monitor all components annually using EPA
Method 21 and a leak definition of 10,000 ppmv.
Control Option 2 (for connectors in G/V or LL service,
valves in G/V or LL service, and pumps in LL service): monitor all
components semiannually using EPA Method 21 and a leak definition of
10,000 ppmv.
Control Option 3 (for connectors in G/V or LL service,
valves in G/V or LL service, and pumps in LL service): monitor all
components annually using EPA Method 21 and a leak definition of 500
ppmv.
To estimate the costs and emission reductions, we assumed that 247
CMAS facilities currently follow the CMAS requirement of performing
quarterly AVO inspections and are impacted by this technology review.
For simplicity, we excluded 4 other CMAS facilities from our analysis
that may have equipment leaks in EtO service; and instead, we included
them in our GACT analysis discussed in section IV.A.1 of this preamble.
To get the nationwide impacts of each Control Option, we estimated the
cost and reductions for a model CMAS facility to implement each of the
three control options and multiplied the model facility results by 247.
The memorandum Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis
for Equipment Leaks that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Equipment Leaks from Chemical Manufacturing
Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking, presents
[[Page 7966]]
details on the assumptions and methodologies used in this analysis.
Table 8 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for
requiring owners and operators to perform EPA Method 21 monitoring in
accordance with Control Options 1-3. Based on the costs and emission
reductions, we are proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP for equipment in
HAP service to reflect Control Option 1 pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). Control Options 2 and 3 have incremental costs and emission
reductions (i.e., incremental to Control Option 1) that are not cost
effective and we are not proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP to reflect
either of these options.
Table 8--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Options 1-3 for Requiring EPA Method 21 Monitoring for Equipment Leaks at CMAS Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP
incremental
Total Total HAP cost HAP cost cost
Total capital annualized annualized VOC emission HAP emission effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness
Control option investment ($) costs w/o costs with reductions reductions w/o recovery with recovery with recovery
recovery recovery (tpy) (tpy) credits ($/ credits ($/ credits (from
credits ($/yr) credits ($/yr) ton) ton) option 1) ($/
ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 2,499,600 2,220,500 862,000 1,510 151 14,700 5,700
2............................................................... 2,499,600 3,109,700 1,516,600 1,772 177 17,600 8,600 25,000
3............................................................... 2,499,600 3,465,400 1,968,600 1,662 166 20,900 11,800 72,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing Control Option 1 for equipment leaks at 40 CFR
63.11495(a)(6). To effectively incorporate Control Option 1 into the
CMAS NESHAP, we specify at proposed 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6) that owners
and operators of new and existing affected sources with equipment in
organic HAP service must conduct annual leak detection monitoring of
all pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor service and in
light liquid service, and connectors in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service by the method specified in 40 CFR 63.180(b)(1) through
(3), with certain exceptions (e.g., pumps, valves, and connectors that
are unsafe to monitor may be exempt). We also specify at proposed 40
CFR 63.11495(a)(6) that a leak from any of these types of equipment is
detected if the instrument reading equals or exceeds 10,000 ppmv and a
first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 calendar days
after a leak is detected. Also, we are proposing that equipment must be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days
after the leak is detected, except as allowed in the HON for delay of
repair at 40 CFR 63.171. Additionally, we are proposing at 40 CFR
63.11495(a)(6) the HON LDAR requirements for compressors (i.e., 40 CFR
63.164), sampling connection systems (i.e., 40 CFR 63.166), open-ended
valves or lines (i.e., 40 CFR 63.167), equipment in heavy liquid
service (i.e., 40 CFR 63.169), and agitators in G/V or LL service
(i.e., 40 CFR 63.173). We note that we are also proposing the HON LDAR
requirements for PRDs (i.e., 40 CFR 63.165) which are discussed in
section IV.B.2 of this preamble, and the HON fenceline monitoring
requirements (i.e., 40 CFR 63.184) which are discussed in sections
IV.A.7 and IV.C.7 of this preamble, respectively.
2. Heat Exchange Systems
Heat exchangers are devices or collections of devices used to
transfer heat from process fluids to another process fluid (typically
water) without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the
cooling fluid (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger). There are two types
of heat exchange systems: closed-loop recirculation systems and once-
through systems. Closed-loop recirculation systems use a cooling tower
to cool the heated water leaving the heat exchanger and then return the
newly cooled water to the heat exchanger for reuse. Once-through
systems typically use surface freshwater (e.g., from a nearby river) as
the influent cooling fluid to the heat exchangers, and the heated water
leaving the system is then discharged from the facility. At times, the
internal tubing material of a heat exchanger can corrode or crack,
allowing some process fluids to mix or become entrained with the
cooling water. Pollutants in the process fluids may subsequently be
released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is
exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or
trenches/ponds in a once-through system).
The CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11502(a), by reference to the HON (40
CFR 63.101), defines a heat exchange system as ``a device or collection
of devices used to transfer heat from process fluids to water without
intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e.,
non-contact heat exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a
closed-loop recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-
through system (e.g., river or pond water).'' Pursuant to the recent
technology review for the HON (see 79 FR 25080, May 16, 2024), the
definition also clarifies that: (1) For closed-loop recirculation
systems, the heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all CMPU
heat exchangers that are in organic HAP service serviced by that
cooling tower, and all water lines to and from these process unit heat
exchangers; (2) for once-through systems, the heat exchange system
consists of all heat exchangers that are in organic HAP service,
servicing an individual CMPU and all water lines to and from these heat
exchangers; (3) sample coolers or pump seal coolers are not considered
heat exchangers and are not part of the heat exchange system; and (4)
intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation
of a wastewater.
The current CMAS NESHAP requirements for heat exchange systems at
40 CFR 63.11499, by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.104), includes an
LDAR program for owners or operators of certain heat exchange systems
(i.e., those not meeting one or more of the conditions in 40 CFR
63.104(a)) with a cooling water flow rate equal to or greater than
8,000 gpm. The LDAR program specifies that owners or operators must
monitor heat exchange systems for leaks of process fluids into cooling
water and take actions to repair detected leaks within 45 days; and
owners or operators may delay the repair of leaks if they meet the
applicable criteria in 40 CFR 63.104. The CMAS NESHAP allows owners or
operators to use any method listed in 40 CFR part 136 to sample cooling
water for leaks for the HAP listed in table 4 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart F (for recirculating systems) and table 9 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G (for once-through systems) (and other
[[Page 7967]]
representative substances such as total organic compounds (TOC) or VOC
that can indicate the presence of a leak can also be used). A leak in
the heat exchange system is detected if the exit mean concentration of
HAP (or other representative substance) in the cooling water is at
least 1 ppmw or 10 percent greater than (using a one-sided statistical
procedure at the 0.05 level of significance) the entrance mean
concentration of HAP (or other representative substance) in the cooling
water. Furthermore, the CMAS NESHAP allows owners or operators to
monitor for leaks using a surrogate indicator (e.g., ion-specific
electrode monitoring, pH, conductivity), provided that certain criteria
in 40 CFR 63.104(c) are met. The CMAS NESHAP requires quarterly
monitoring for heat exchange systems. The leak monitoring frequencies
are the same whether water sampling and analysis or surrogate
monitoring is used to identify leaks.
For heat exchange systems at CMAS CMPUs with a cooling water flow
rate less than 8,000 gpm that are not meeting one or more of the
conditions in 40 CFR 63.104(a), owners and operators must develop and
operate in accordance with a heat exchange system inspection plan that
describes the inspections to be performed at least once per quarter.
Inspections must provide evidence of hydrocarbons in the cooling water
and may include checks for visible floating hydrocarbon on the water,
hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, and/or chemical addition rates.
Owners and operators of these heat exchange systems must also perform
repairs to eliminate the leak within 45 calendar days after indications
of the leak are identified but may delay the repair if a reason is
documented in the next semiannual compliance report. As an alternative
to the requirements described in this paragraph, owners and operators
of heat exchange systems at CMAS CMPUs with a cooling water flow rate
less than 8,000 gpm can choose to comply with the LDAR monitoring
options specified for heat exchange systems with a cooling water flow
rate equal to or greater than 8,000 gpm.
As part of our technology review, we reviewed the criteria in 40
CFR 63.11495(b) and 40 CFR 63.11499(a) (i.e., the reference to the
exemptions listed in the HON at 40 CFR 63.104(a)), to see if these
exemptions were still reasonable to maintain. We identified two
criteria in 40 CFR 63.104 dealing with once-through heat exchange
systems meeting certain NPDES permit conditions (i.e., 40 CFR
63.104(a)(3) and (4)) that warranted further assessment. Once-through
heat exchange systems typically have systems open to the air (e.g.,
open sewer lines, trenches, and ponds) that are used to transport used
cooling water to a discharge point (e.g., an outfall) of a facility.
This cooling water can also be mixed with other sources of water (e.g.,
cooling water used in once-through heat exchange systems in non-CMAS
processes, stormwater, treated wastewater, etc.) in sewers, trenches,
and ponds prior to discharge from the plant. If this point of discharge
from the plant is into a ``water of the United States,'' the facility
is required to have a NPDES permit and to meet certain pollutant
discharge limits. In reviewing the requirements of 40 CFR 63.104(a)(3),
we find that there is a clear disconnect between having a NPDES permit
that meets certain allowable discharge limits (i.e., 1 ppmw or less
above influent concentration, or 10 percent or less above influent
concentration, whichever is greater) at the discharge point of a
facility (e.g., outfall) versus being able to adequately identify a
leak from a once-through heat exchange system given that these systems
are open to the atmosphere prior to this discharge point and,
therefore, any volatile HAP leaking from a once-through heat exchange
system would likely be emitted to the atmosphere prior to the NPDES
outfall. Similarly, while the requirements of 40 CFR 63.104(a)(4) allow
facilities with once-through heat exchange systems that have certain
requirements (i.e., the requirements of 40 CFR 63.104(a)(3) and (4))
incorporated into their NPDES permit to not comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.104(b) and (c), we find this exemption to be
problematic. Specifically, the NPDES requirements at 40 CFR
63.104(a)(4) lack the specificity of where a sample must be taken to
adequately find and quantify a leak from a once-through heat exchange
system (e.g., just prior to the outfall from the plant versus from the
exit of the once-through heat exchange system prior to being open to
atmosphere), what concentration and/or mass emissions rate constitutes
a leak that must be fixed, how quickly a leak must be fixed, what
pollutants must be adequately accounted for, and what test method(s)/
surrogates facilities are allowed. As such, we find 40 CFR 63.104(a)(4)
to be inadequate in terms of being able to detect and repair leaks that
are at least as equivalent to those that would be identified if once-
through heat exchange systems were complying with 40 CFR 63.104(b) or
(c) instead. Therefore, for purposes of demonstrating continuous
compliance with the underlying GACT standard, we are proposing at 40
CFR 63.11495(b) and 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and (e) to remove the exemptions
for once-through heat exchange systems meeting certain NPDES permit
conditions at 40 CFR 63.104(a)(3) and (4) and to instead require
facilities to monitor the cooling water for the presence of leaks.
Our technology review also identified one development in LDAR
practices and processes for heat exchange systems: the use of the
Modified El Paso Method \37\ to monitor for leaks. The EPA identified
the Modified El Paso Method, which is included in the HON, MON, EMACT
standards, the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, and in our review of the
RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) also requires the method for facilities
complying with TCEQ's highly reactive volatile organic compound (HRVOC)
rule (i.e., 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115, Subchapter H,
Division 3). The Modified El Paso Method measures a larger number of
compounds than the current methods required in the CMAS NESHAP and is
more effective in identifying leaks. For LDAR programs applied to heat
exchange systems, the compliance monitoring option, leak definition,
and frequency of monitoring for leaks are all important considerations
affecting emission reductions by identifying when there is a leak and
when to take corrective actions to repair the leak. Therefore, we
evaluated the Modified El Paso Method for use at CMAS facilities as
described below, including an assessment of appropriate leak
definitions and monitoring frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Modified El Paso Method uses a dynamic or flow-through
system for air stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the
resultant off-gases for VOC using an FID analyzer. The method is
described in detail in appendix P of the TCEQ's Sampling Procedures
Manual: The Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from
Water Sources. Appendix P is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify an appropriate Modified El Paso Method leak definition
for facilities subject to the CMAS NESHAP, we identified five rules
(i.e., TCEQ HRVOC rule, the HON, the MON, the EMACT standards, and the
Petroleum Refinery Sector rule) all of which incorporate this
monitoring method and have leak definitions corresponding to the use of
this methodology. We also reviewed data submitted in response to a CAA
section 114 request for the Ethylene Production RTR where facilities
performed sampling using the Modified El Paso Method.
The TCEQ HRVOC rule, the HON, the MON, EMACT standards, and the
[[Page 7968]]
Petroleum Refinery Sector rule have leak definitions of total
strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas
ranging from 3.1 ppmv to 6.2 ppmv. In addition, sources subject to the
HON, the MON, EMACT standards, or the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule
must repair a leak no later than 45 days after first identifying the
leak, and also may not delay the repair of leaks for more than 30 days
where, during subsequent monitoring, owners or operators find a total
strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas
of 62 ppmv or higher. In reviewing the Ethylene Production RTR CAA
section 114 data, we identified a clear delineation in the hydrocarbon
mass emissions data at 6.1 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon (as
methane) in the stripping gas. Taking into account the range of
actionable leak definitions in use by other rules that require use of
the Modified El Paso Method currently (i.e., 3.1 ppmv to 6.2 ppmv of
total strippable hydrocarbon (as methane) in the stripping gas), and
the magnitude of emissions for leaks as a result of total strippable
hydrocarbon (as methane) in the stripping gas above 6.1 ppmv, we chose
to evaluate a leak definition at the upper end of identified actionable
leak definitions in our analysis. Thus, we evaluated the Modified El
Paso Method leak definition of 6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas for both new and
existing heat exchange systems, along with the requirement to repair a
leak no later than 45 days after first identifying the leak, and not
allowing delay of repair of leaks for more than 30 days where, during
subsequent monitoring, a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as
methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv or higher is found.
We also considered more stringent monitoring frequencies. Both the
Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, which includes monthly monitoring for
existing sources under certain circumstances, and the TCEQ HRVOC rule,
which includes continuous monitoring provisions for existing and new
sources, have more stringent monitoring frequencies.
Based on this technology review, we identified the following two
Control Options as developments in practices for heat exchanger systems
at CMAS facilities:
Control Option 1 (for heat exchange systems with a cooling
water flow rate equal to or greater than 8,000 gpm): quarterly
monitoring with the Modified El Paso Method, using a leak action level
defined as a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in
the stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv (with the requirement to repair a leak no
later than 45 days after first identifying the leak, and allow delay of
repair up to 120 days except no more than 30 days where a total
strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas
of 62 ppmv or higher is found). This option would also require re-
monitoring at the monitoring location where the leak was identified to
ensure that any leaks found are fixed.
Control Option 2: same as Control Option 1, except monthly
monitoring with the Modified El Paso Method instead of quarterly
monitoring.
We then estimated the impacts of these Control Options. Using
information from the original CMAS rulemaking,\38\ we estimated 51 of
247 CMAS facilities would be affected by Control Options 1 and 2; and
we assumed these facilities already conduct water sampling. For
simplicity, we excluded 4 other CMAS facilities from our analysis that
may have a heat exchange system in EtO service; and instead, we
included them in our GACT analysis discussed in section IV.A.2 of this
preamble. As part of our analysis, we also assumed all facilities
monitoring quarterly for two or less heat exchange systems would elect
to contract out the Modified El Paso monitoring (instead of purchasing
a stripping column and FID analyzer and performing the monitoring in-
house); however, facilities monitoring monthly would elect to purchase
a stripping column and FID analyzer and perform in-house El Paso
monitoring due to logistics. In addition, we assumed repairs could be
performed by plugging a specific heat exchanger tube, and if a heat
exchanger is leaking to the extent that it needs to be replaced, then
it is effectively at the end of its useful life. Therefore, we
determined that the cost of replacing a heat exchanger is an
operational cost that would be incurred by the facility because of
routine maintenance and equipment replacement, and it is not
attributable to the Control Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ EPA, 2008. Control Options and Impacts for Cooling Tower
Control Measures Chemical Manufacturing Area Source Standards.
September 5, 2008. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-0003; and EPA,
2009. Update to the Control Options and Impacts for Heat Exchange
System Control Measures for Promulgation Chemical Manufacturing Area
Source Standards. May 5, 2009. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-
0081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for
requiring owners and operators to use the Modified El Paso Method and
repair leaks of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane)
in accordance to Control Options 1 and 2. See the document titled Clean
Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Heat Exchange
Systems that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for Heat Exchange Systems Associated with Chemical Manufacturing
Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking, for details on the
assumptions and methodologies used in this analysis. Based on the costs
and emission reductions for the identified Control Options, we are
proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP for heat exchange systems to
reflect Control Option 1 pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Table 9--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Options 1 and 2 for Requiring the Modified El Paso Method for Heat Exchange Systems
at CMAS Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
annualized VOC emission HAP emission HAP cost annualized HAP cost
Control option Total capital costs w/o reductions reductions effectiveness w/ costs with effectiveness
investment ($) recovery (tpy) (tpy) o recovery recovery with recovery
credits ($/yr) credits ($/ton) credits ($/yr) credits ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 0 57,100 44.6 4.46 12,800 16,900 3,800
2................................... 1,046,400 214,200 46.1 4.61 46,500 172,700 37,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7969]]
We are proposing Control Option 1 at 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and item
1.c of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP, by reference to the HON (40 CFR
63.104(a) and (f) through (l)), to specify quarterly monitoring for
existing and new heat exchange systems (after an initial 6 months of
monthly monitoring) using the Modified El Paso Method and a leak
definition of 6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration
(as methane) in the stripping gas. Owners and operators of new and
existing affected sources would be required to repair the leak to
reduce the concentration or mass emissions rate to below the leak
action level as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after
identifying the leak. We are also proposing at 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and
item 1.c of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP, by reference to the HON, a
delay of repair action level of total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv, that if
exceeded during leak monitoring, would require immediate repair (i.e.,
the leak found cannot be put on delay of repair and would be required
to be repaired within 30 days of the monitoring event). This would
apply to both monitoring heat exchange systems and individual heat
exchangers by replacing the use of any 40 CFR part 136 water sampling
method with the Modified El Paso Method and removing the option that
allows for use of a surrogate indicator of leaks. We are also proposing
at 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and item 1.c of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP, by
reference to the HON, that repair include re-monitoring at the
monitoring location where a leak is identified to ensure that any leaks
found are fixed. We are proposing that none of these proposed
requirements would apply to heat exchange systems that have a maximum
cooling water flow rate of less than 8,000 gallons per minute because
owners and operators of smaller heat exchange systems would be
disproportionally affected and forced to repair leaks with a much lower
potential HAP emissions rate than owners and operators of heat exchange
systems with larger recirculation rate systems.
3. Process Vents
A process vent is a gas stream that is discharged during the
operation of a particular unit operation (e.g., separation processes,
purification processes, mixing processes, reaction processes). The gas
stream(s) may be routed to other unit operations for additional
processing (e.g., a gas stream from a reactor that is routed to a
distillation column for separation of products), sent to one or more
recovery devices, sent to a process vent header collection system
(e.g., blowdown system) and APCD (e.g., flare, thermal oxidizer, carbon
adsorber), and/or vented to the atmosphere. Process vents may be
generated from continuous and/or batch operations, as well as from
other intermittent types of operations (e.g., maintenance operations).
If process vents are required to be controlled prior to discharge to
the atmosphere to meet an applicable emissions standard, then they are
typically collected and routed to an APCD through a closed vent system.
The CMAS NESHAP defines batch process vents as a vent from a CMPU
or vents from multiple CMPUs within a process that are manifolded
together into a common header, through which a HAP-containing gas
stream is, or has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere.
Batch process vents include vents from batch operations and vents with
intermittent flow from continuous operations that are not combined with
any stream that originated as a continuous gas stream from the same
continuous process. Batch process vents at existing affected sources
are subject to controls if the total organic HAP emissions from all
batch process vents combined are greater than or equal to 10,000 lb/yr.
Owners and operators have three options for controlling batch process
vents meeting the criteria: (1) reduce collective uncontrolled total
organic HAP emissions from the sum of all batch process vents by
greater than or equal to 85 percent by weight or to less than or equal
to 20 ppmv by routing emissions through a closed vent system to any
combination of control devices (except a flare); (2) route emissions
from batch process vents containing greater than or equal to 85 percent
of the uncontrolled total organic HAP through a closed vent system to a
flare; or (3) comply with the alternative standard specified in 40 CFR
63.2505, which requires owners and operators to achieve specified
outlet concentrations for TOC and total hydrogen halides and halogens
on a continuous basis (both emission limits are 20 ppmv for combustion
devices, and 50 ppmv for non-combustion devices). The requirements for
batch process vents at new affected sources are the same, except
instead of 85 percent control, the CMAS NESHAP requires 90 percent
control.
The CMAS NESHAP currently defines ``continuous process vents''
using the definition of ``process vent'' in the HON (40 CFR part 63,
subpart F), but includes a few caveats that address any references to
the HON. In other words, a ``continuous process vent'' is the point of
discharge to the atmosphere (or the point of entry into a control
device, if any) of a gas stream if the gas stream has the
characteristics specified in 40 CFR 63.107(b) through (h), or meets the
criteria specified in 40 CFR 63.107(i). Additionally, any references to
``air oxidation reactors, distillation units, or reactors'' in the HON
process vent definition, instead mean ``any continuous operation''
within the context of the ``continuous process vent'' definition in the
CMAS NESHAP. The definition of ``continuous process vent'' in the CMAS
NESHAP also requires a separate determination for the emissions from
each CMPU, even if emission streams from two or more CMPUs are combined
prior to discharge to the atmosphere or to a control device. Continuous
process vents at both existing and new affected sources with a total
resource effectiveness (TRE) index value \39\ less than or equal to 1.0
are subject to controls and have three options to meet this
requirement. Owners and operators can either: (1) reduce emissions of
total organic HAP by greater than or equal to 95 percent by weight (85
percent by weight for periods of startup or shutdown) or to less than
or equal to 20 ppmv by routing emissions through a closed vent system
to any combination of control devices (except a flare); (2) reduce
emissions of total organic HAP by routing all emissions through a
closed vent system to a flare; or (3) comply with the alternative
standard specified in 40 CFR 63.2505. Continuous process vents at both
existing and new affected sources with a TRE index value greater than
1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0 may comply with the operating,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR
63.982(e) if a recovery device is used to maintain a
[[Page 7970]]
TRE greater than 1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The TRE index value is a measure of the supplemental total
resource requirement per unit VOC (or HAP) reduction. It takes into
account all the resources which are expected to be used in VOC (or
HAP) control by thermal oxidation and provides a dimensionless
measure of resource burden based on cost effectiveness. Resources
include supplemental natural gas, labor, and electricity.
Additionally, if the off-gas contains halogenated compounds,
resources will also include caustic and scrubbing and quench makeup
water. For the CMAS NESHAP, the TRE index value is derived from the
cost effectiveness associated with HAP control by a flare or thermal
oxidation, and is a function of vent stream flowrate, vent stream
net heating value, hourly emissions, and a set of coefficients. The
TRE index value was first introduced in an EPA document titled:
Guideline Series for Control of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), which is available in the docket for
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, both batch and continuous process vents have
different requirements under the CMAS NESHAP if the process vent stream
is halogenated. Halogenated batch and continuous process vent streams
at new or existing sources that are controlled through combustion must
also use halogen scrubbers to: (1) reduce overall emissions of hydrogen
halide and halogen HAP after the combustion device by greater than or
equal to 95-percent, to less than or equal to 0.45 kilogram per hour
(kg/hr), or to a concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv; or (2)
reduce the halogen atom mass emission rate before the combustion device
to less than or equal to 0.45 kg/hr or to a concentration less than or
equal to 20 ppmv.
The CMAS NESHAP also defines metal HAP process vents as the point
of discharge to the atmosphere (or inlet to a control device, if any)
of a metal HAP-containing gas stream from any CMPU at an affected
source containing at least 50 ppmv metal HAP (see 40 CFR 63.11502(b)).
The metal HAP concentration may be determined using any of the
following: process knowledge, an engineering assessment, or test data.
For purposes of the CMAS NESHAP, metal HAP are the compounds containing
metals listed as HAP in section 112(b) of the CAA. Metal HAP process
vents at both existing and new affected sources with total metal HAP
emissions greater than or equal to 400 lb/yr are subject to controls.
Owners and operators must reduce collective uncontrolled emissions of
total metal HAP emissions by greater than or equal to 95 percent by
weight by routing emissions from a sufficient number of the metal
process vents through a closed vent system to any combination of
control devices.
We are proposing to make a change to the definition of ``metal HAP
process vent'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b). In 2012, as part of a response to
a petition for reconsideration, the EPA added the 50 ppmv threshold to
the definition of ``metal HAP process vent'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b).\40\
This threshold was included because two commenters argued it was
necessary to better represent GACT, based on their sulfuric acid
regeneration units already achieving over 95 percent reduction in metal
HAP. However, the EPA did not conduct any analysis to justify this
addition. We believe the threshold is inappropriate and has allowed
process vents previously subject to control to freely emit metal HAP.
We identified a facility through the emissions inventory (see section
II.C of this preamble) that is currently subject to the CMAS NESHAP.
This facility reported emitting 1.99 tpy of nickel compounds from
process vents. Since the facility emits more than 400 lb/year of metal
HAP, the provisions in table 4 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV should
apply. However, if these standards were applied, it would suggest that
the facility was emitting nearly 40 tpy of nickel compounds
uncontrolled. This amount of nickel seems unrepresentative of the
source. It is more likely that, due to the 50 ppmv threshold, the
facility determined it was not required to control the metal HAP
process vents. Additionally, we note that this facility was included in
the original rulemaking's facility list, so the impacts of installing
controls have already been considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ On January 30, 2012, the EPA proposed revisions to several
provisions of the CMAS NESHAP (see 77 FR 4522). The proposed
revisions were made, in part, in response to a petition for
reconsideration received by the Administrator following the original
promulgation of the October 29, 2009, final rule. In the proposed
rule revisions, the EPA solicited comment on whether the definition
of ``metal HAP process vent'' was applicable to all types of
equipment from which metal HAP are emitted. The original rule
defined a metal HAP process vent as ``the point of discharge to the
atmosphere (or inlet to a control device, if any) of a metal HAP
containing gas stream from any CMPU at an affected source,''
regardless of the concentration of metal HAP in the stream. Based on
two commenters' requests, the EPA revised the definition of ``metal
HAP process vent'' in the final rule revisions (77 FR 75740,
December 21, 2012), to include only those streams which contain at
least 50 ppmv metal HAP. The EPA also revised the final rule to
state that process vents from CMPUs that only contain metal HAP in a
liquid solution or other form that will not result in particulate
emissions of metal HAP (e.g., metal HAP that is in ingot, paste,
slurry or moist pellet form or other form) are not required to
comply with the metal HAP process vent requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are now proposing to remove the 50 ppmv threshold from the
definition of ``metal HAP process vent'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b). We
believe this concentration-based threshold is unnecessary because the
CMAS NESHAP already has a mass-based metal HAP threshold. Specifically,
if the total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions from all metal HAP
process vents from a CMPU are less than 400 lb/yr, then owners and
operators are only subject to recordkeeping requirements, not the metal
HAP process vent standards in table 4 of the CMAS NESHAP.
In addition to being a necessary revision made as part of CAA
section 112(d)(6), the standards were originally promulgated as part of
the Area Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy to ensure
greater than 90 percent of emissions of the 30 urban HAP were subject
to regulation. In setting the 50 ppmv threshold, vents that were
previously subject to regulation may have been improperly exempted from
the standards that were established to address those emissions. By
proposing to remove the 50 ppmv threshold and returning the definition
to its originally promulgated state, the standards will once again
apply to those metal HAP vents previously subject as part of the
original rulemaking.
As part of our technology review, we also examined subsequent
regulatory development efforts and found that the EPA recently
evaluated emission reduction options for continuous process vents
subject to the HON, including the removal of the TRE concept in its
entirety from the NESHAP or revising the TRE index value threshold from
1.0 to 5.0. The EPA determined that removing the TRE concept in its
entirety from the HON was cost effective and finalized this in that
rule (see 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024). It is reasonable to consider
removing the TRE concept in its entirety from the CMAS NESHAP given
that CMPU sources subject to the CMAS NESHAP are similar to CMPU
sources that are subject to the HON; however, we do not have data
representative of CMAS continuous process vents to evaluate this
option. In other words, none of the continuous process vent data that
the EPA used in the HON rulemaking are representative of an area
source; and therefore, not representative of a CMAS facility. For
further information, see the document titled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Process Vents and Storage Tanks
that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Process Vents and Storage Tanks Associated with Chemical Manufacturing
Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking. We solicit comment and
data on whether removing the TRE concept in its entirety is feasible
for continuous process vents from CMAS CMPUs.
Except for the proposed change to the definition of `metal HAP
process vent' and the TRE options we could not evaluate due to
insufficient data on CMAS continuous process vents, we found no
additional practices, processes, or control technologies beyond those
already required by the CMAS NESHAP for process vents. Our review did
not reveal any other developments in emissions reduction practices for
CMAS process vents that are any more stringent than the GACT standards
in the CMAS NESHAP.
[[Page 7971]]
Therefore, we are not proposing any other changes to the CMAS NESHAP
for process vents pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
4. Storage Tanks
Storage tanks are used to store liquid and gaseous feedstocks for
use in a process, as well as to store liquid and gaseous products from
a process. Most CMAS storage tanks are designed for operation at
atmospheric or near atmospheric pressures; pressure vessels are used to
store compressed gases and liquefied gases. Atmospheric storage tanks
are typically cylindrical with a vertical orientation, and they are
constructed with either a fixed roof or a floating roof. Some,
generally small, atmospheric storage tanks are oriented horizontally.
Pressure vessels are either spherical or horizontal cylinders. As
discussed in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we are proposing new GACT
standards for pressure vessels.
The CMAS NESHAP requires owners and operators to control emissions
from storage tanks with: (1) capacities greater than or equal to 40,000
gallons storing a liquid with a maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP)
greater than or equal to 5.2 kPa but less than 76.6 kPa; (2) capacities
greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons and less than 40,000 gallons
storing a liquid with a MTVP greater than or equal to 27.6 kPa and less
than 76.6 kPa; and (3) capacities greater than or equal to 20,000
gallons storing a liquid with a MTVP greater than or equal to 76.6 kPa.
Owners and operators of storage tanks meeting any of these criteria are
required to reduce total organic HAP emissions by greater than or equal
to 95 percent by weight by operating and maintaining a closed vent
system and control device (other than a flare), reduce total HAP
emissions by operating and maintaining a closed vent system and a
flare, vapor balance, or route emissions to a fuel gas system or
process. Owners and operators of storage tanks meeting the first two
sets of capacity and MTVP criterion can also comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW which requires owners and
operators to operate and maintain an external floating roof (EFR) or
internal floating roof (IFR) according to specific monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting standards.
Additionally, storage tanks within the capacity and MTVP thresholds
listed in the preceding paragraph have different requirements under the
CMAS NESHAP if the storage tank emits a halogenated vent stream.
Halogenated storage tank vent streams at new or existing sources that
are controlled through a combustion device must also use a halogen
reduction device to: (1) reduce emissions of hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP after the combustion device by greater than or equal to 95-
percent, to less than or equal to 0.45 kg/hr, or to a concentration
less than or equal to 20 ppmv; or (2) reduce the halogen atom mass
emission rate before the combustion device to less than or equal to
0.45 kg/hr or to a concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv.
We did not identify any practices, processes, or control
technologies beyond those already required by the CMAS NESHAP for
storage tanks. Our review did not reveal any developments in emissions
reduction practices for CMAS storage tanks that are any more stringent
than the GACT standards in the CMAS NESHAP. Therefore, we are not
proposing any changes to the CMAS NESHAP for storage tanks pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6). As part of our technology review, we examined
subsequent regulatory development efforts and found that the EPA
recently evaluated emission reduction options for storage vessels \41\
subject to the HON, including revising capacity and MTVP thresholds,
requiring certain IFR controls pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW,
and requiring the conversion of EFRs to IFRs through use of geodesic
domes. The EPA determined that revising capacity and MTVP thresholds
and requiring certain IFR controls pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WW was cost effective for HON storage vessels and finalized this in the
rule (see 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024). It is reasonable to consider
these Control Options for the CMAS NESHAP given that CMPU sources
subject to the CMAS NESHAP are similar to CMPU sources that are subject
to the HON; however, we do not have data representative of CMAS storage
tanks to evaluate these options. In other words, none of the storage
vessel data that the EPA used in the recent HON rulemaking are
representative of an area source; and therefore, not representative of
a CMAS facility. Even still, we note that the CMAS NESHAP already
includes complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW as an option.
Additionally, the EPA found the option of converting EFRs to IFRs
through the use of geodesic domes to not be cost effective for HON
storage vessels; therefore, we anticipate this option would likewise
not be cost effective for CMAS storage tanks. For further information,
see the document titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard
Analysis for Process Vents and Storage Tanks that Emit Ethylene Oxide
and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Process Vents and Storage
Tanks Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process Units at Area
Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The HON uses the term ``storage vessel'' in lieu of
``storage tank'' like the CMAS NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Wastewater
HAP are emitted into the air from wastewater collection, storage,
and treatment systems that are uncovered or open to the atmosphere
through volatilization of the compound at the liquid surface. Emissions
occur by diffusive or convective means, or both. Diffusion occurs when
organic pollutant concentrations at the water surface are much higher
than ambient concentrations. The organic pollutants volatilize, or
diffuse into the air, to reach equilibrium between the aqueous and
vapor phases. Convection occurs when air flows over the water surface,
sweeping organic vapors from the water surface into the air. The rate
of volatilization is related directly to the speed of the air flow over
the water surface.
The CMAS NESHAP defines wastewater to mean water that is discarded
from a CMPU or control device and that contains at least 5 ppmw of any
HAP listed in table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G and has an annual
average flow rate of 0.02 liters per minute (lpm). Wastewater means
both process wastewater \42\ and maintenance wastewater \43\ that is
discarded from a CMPU or control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Process wastewater means wastewater which, during
manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or
results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. Examples
are product tank drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water formed during
a chemical reaction or used as a reactant; water used to wash
impurities from organic products or reactants; water used to cool or
quench organic vapor streams through direct contact; and condensed
steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on vessels containing
organics.
\43\ Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the
draining of process fluid from components in the CMPU into an
individual drain system in preparation for or during maintenance
activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned
and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a
shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate maintenance
wastewater include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles,
cleaning of distillation column traps, draining of pumps into an
individual drain system, and draining of portions of the CMPU for
repair. Wastewater from routine cleaning operations occurring as
part of batch operations is not considered maintenance wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each wastewater stream containing partially soluble HAP at a
concentration greater than or equal to
[[Page 7972]]
10,000 ppmw that also has separate organic and water phases, the CMAS
NESHAP requires owners and operators to use a decanter, steam stripper,
thin film evaporator, or distillation unit to separate the water phase
from the organic phase(s); and the organic layer must be recycled to a
process, used as a fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste either
onsite or offsite. The CMAS NESHAP also provides an alternative
compliance option that allows owners and operators to hard-pipe the
entire stream to onsite treatment as a hazardous waste or to a point of
transfer to onsite or offsite hazardous waste treatment. For single
phase wastewater streams and the aqueous phase for two phase streams,
the CMAS NESHAP requires the wastewater streams be sent to a wastewater
treatment process.
As part of our technology review, we found that many of the NESHAP
for different chemical manufacturing source categories (e.g., the HON,
MON, and PEPO NESHAP) require treatment of wastewater streams that meet
certain flow and HAP concentration levels. These standards require
either the use of a treatment unit that meets specified design criteria
or that achieves specified destruction efficiencies for the HAP in the
wastewater. They also typically require the use of covers and other
techniques to suppress emissions from the wastewater conveyance system
and treatment units. During the original CMAS rulemaking (74 FR 56008,
October 29, 2009), the EPA evaluated treating CMAS wastewater streams
using controls that meet the HON requirements; however, the EPA found
the option to not be cost effective.\44\ We find no reason for the HON
requirements to be any more cost effective today compared to the cost
effectiveness that was determined in 2008. Therefore, we are not
proposing any changes to the CMAS NESHAP for wastewater pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 73 FR 58352, October 6, 2008. ``We are proposing that
[wastewater] controls needed to meet more stringent emission limits
like those required by the HON do not represent GACT for either
subcategory because the costs are unreasonable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Flares
The CMAS NESHAP allows for the use of a flare to control emissions
(except halogenated emissions) from batch process vents, continuous
process vents, and/or storage tanks. The CMAS NESHAP points to the
flare requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS which
requires owners and operators to conduct a flare compliance assessment
to demonstrate initial compliance, and continuously monitor applicable
operating parameters in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11 to demonstrate
continuous compliance. Although GACT for batch process vents is
emission reductions of 85 percent by weight (for existing) and 90
percent by weight (for new); for continuous process vents is 95 percent
by weight (except 85 percent by weight for startup and shutdown); and
for storage tanks is 95 percent by weight, the available data at the
time the CMAS NESHAP was promulgated suggested that flares meeting
these design and operating requirements of 40 CFR 63.11 would achieve a
minimum destruction efficiency of no less than 98 percent by weight
emissions control. However, more recent studies on flare performance
\45\ indicate that the requirements in 40 CFR 63.11 are inadequate to
ensure 98 percent by weight control. These studies compelled the EPA to
finalize a suite of operational and monitoring requirements for
refinery flares on December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75178-75354; see 40 CFR
63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671) including requirements addressing: (1) the
presence of a pilot flame; (2) visible emissions; (3) flare tip
velocity; (4) net heating value of flare combustion zone gas; and (5)
net heating value dilution parameter (if the flare actively receives
perimeter assist air). The EPA determined that this suite of
operational and monitoring requirements for flares is necessary to
ensure the level of destruction efficiency needed to conform with the
petroleum refineries NESHAP. Importantly, given that the flare dataset
that formed the underlying basis of the new standards for refinery
flares also included flares at olefin and other petrochemical plants,
the EPA also revised the suite of operational and monitoring
requirements for flares in other chemical manufacturing source
categories, including the EMACT standards (85 FR 40386, July 6, 2020;
see 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(4)), the Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD)
NESHAP (85 FR 40740, July 7, 2020; see 40 CFR 63.2380(a)), the MON (85
FR 49084, August 20, 2020; see 40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5)), and the HON and
P&R I NESHAP (89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024; see 40 CFR 63.108 and 63.508,
respectively). The EPA did this for the same reason as was done for the
petroleum refineries NESHAP, to ensure the level of destruction
efficiency needed to conform with each NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ For a list of studies, refer to the technical report titled
Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, in Docket ID
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191. This document can also be found
at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/review-peer-review-parameters-properly-designed-and-operated-flares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge that none of the performance standards in the CMAS
NESHAP are as stringent as 98 percent by weight emissions control;
however, under CAA section 112(d)(6), we still evaluated the option
(i.e., Control Option 1) to require all flares at CMAS facilities to
comply with the same suite of flare operational and monitoring
requirements included in the petroleum refineries NESHAP, EMACT
standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, HON, and P&R I and Group II Polymers and
Resins NESHAP. The monitoring equipment needed to comply with the suite
of flare operational and monitoring requirements (i.e., hydrogen
analyzers, calorimeters, and flow monitors) were not identified or
considered during development of the original GACT standards;
therefore, we consider this a development under this technology review.
Additionally, we believe the suite of flare operational and monitoring
requirements could be relevant to the CMAS NESHAP due to the
similarities between processes at chemical manufacturing plants,
regardless of size.
Using information from the CMAS emissions inventory data (see
section II.C.2 of this preamble), we estimated there are 22 flares at
20 CMAS facilities that would be affected by Control Option 1 (we did
not identify any other flares in the CMAS emissions inventory). To
avoid double counting, we excluded two of the 22 flares from our
analysis that emit EtO; and instead, we included them in our GACT
analysis discussed in section IV.A.6 of this preamble. We estimated
costs for each flare for a given facility, considering current
monitoring systems already installed on each individual flare. Given
that the same type of equipment is used for flares in the CMAS
categories and for the petroleum refinery sector, we estimated costs
for any additional monitoring systems needed based on installed costs
received from petroleum refineries and, if installed costs were
unavailable, we estimated costs based on vendor-purchased equipment.
The baseline emission estimate and the emission reductions achieved by
Control Option 1 were estimated based on the CMAS emissions inventory
data (see section II.C.2 of this preamble) and current vent gas and
steam flow data submitted by industry representatives.\46\
[[Page 7973]]
The results of the impact estimates for Control Options 1 are
summarized in table 10 of this preamble. See the document titled Clean
Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Flares that Emit
Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Flares
Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process Units at Area Sources
Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, for details on the assumptions and methodologies used in
this analysis. We determined that Control Option 1 is not cost
effective and are not proposing to revise the CMAS NESHAP to reflect
the requirements of this option pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ To estimate the baseline control efficiency of VOC and HAP
anticipated by applying Control Option 1, we reviewed data submitted
to the EPA in 2011 by the API, the ACC, and the NPRA, now known as
the AFPM. This dataset includes detailed hourly operational
information for 38 steam-assisted flares, characterizing different
operating conditions by waste gas flow rate, steam flow rate, waste
gas composition, and duration of that operating condition.
Table 10--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Option 1 for Requiring the Suite of Operational and Monitoring Requirements for
Flares at CMAS Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
capital Total VOC emission HAP emission HAP cost
Control option investment annualized reductions (tpy) reductions (tpy) effectiveness ($/
($) costs ($/yr) ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................................. 26,000,000 6,160,000 1,114 89.4 68,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Fenceline Monitoring
Fenceline monitoring refers to the placement of monitors along the
perimeter of a facility to measure pollutant concentrations. Coupled
with requirements for root cause analysis and corrective action upon
triggering an actionable level, this management practice is a
development in practices considered under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
purposes of managing fugitive emissions. The measurement of pollutant
concentrations and comparison to concentrations estimated from mass
emissions via dispersion modeling is used to verify emission estimates
from a facility's emissions inventory. If concentrations at the
fenceline are greater than expected, potential causes may include
underreported or unknown emissions, leaking equipment, or other issues,
usually related to ground-level fugitive emissions. Fenceline
monitoring also provides information on the location of potential
emissions sources because it provides complete spatial coverage of a
facility. Further, when used with a mitigation strategy, such as root
cause analysis and corrective action upon exceedance of an action
level, fenceline monitoring can be effective in reducing emissions and
reducing the uncertainty associated with emissions estimation and
characterization. Finally, public reporting of fenceline monitoring
data provides public transparency and greater visibility, leading to
more focus and effort in reducing emissions.
The EPA has successfully applied fenceline monitoring to the
petroleum refineries source category as a technique to manage and
reduce benzene emissions from fugitive emissions sources such as
storage vessels, wastewater treatment systems, and leaking equipment.
In 2015, the EPA promulgated the RTR for the petroleum refineries
source category and required that refineries install and operate
fenceline monitors following EPA Method 325 A/B to monitor benzene
emissions. Additionally, the 2015 rule required that refineries conduct
a root cause analysis to identify sources of high fenceline monitoring
readings (i.e., above an annual action level) and then develop a
corrective action plan to address the sources and reduce emissions to a
level that will bring fenceline monitoring concentrations below the
action level.\47\ To date, the EPA has received fenceline monitoring
data from petroleum refineries for more than 5 years.\48\ These data
show that petroleum refinery fenceline concentrations have dropped by
an average of 30 percent since the inception of the monitoring program
requirements and illustrate that fenceline monitoring is an effective
tool in reducing emissions and preserving emission reductions on an
ongoing basis for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 40 CFR 63.658(f)-(h).
\48\ Quarterly fenceline monitoring reports are available
through the EPA's WebFIRE database at https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/. The EPA has also developed a dashboard to improve public
access to this data. The dashboard is available at https://awsedap.epa.gov/public/extensions/Fenceline_Monitoring/Fenceline_Monitoring.html?sheet=MonitoringDashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in 2024, the EPA promulgated amendments to the HON
(40 CFR part 63, subpart H) and the P&R I NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart U) that included work practice standards requiring owners and
operators to conduct fenceline monitoring for any of six specific HAP
(i.e., benzene; 1,3-butadiene; ethylene dichloride; vinyl chloride;
EtO; and chloroprene) if their affected source uses, produces, stores,
or emits any of them, and conduct root cause analysis and corrective
action upon exceeding the annual average concentration action level
established for each HAP. The final HON and P&R I NESHAP amendments
require owners and operators to conduct passive diffusive tube
fenceline monitoring for benzene, 1,3-butadiene, chloroprene, and
ethylene dichloride in accordance with EPA Methods 325A/B of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A, and to use canister sampling in accordance with
EPA Method 327 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for EtO and vinyl
chloride.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ In the same action (see 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024), the EPA
also finalized EPA Method 327 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, as a
canister sampling and analysis method that provides procedures for
measuring trace levels of targeted VOC (including organic HAP) in
ambient air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the similarities between CMAS CMPUs and sources subject to
the HON or P&R I NESHAP, we evaluated the application of fenceline
monitoring as a development in practices, processes, and control
technologies pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Non-EtO pollutants for
which there are established EPA Methods to measure fenceline
concentrations and which are one of the fifteen urban HAP regulated as
part of the CMAS NESHAP include 1,3-butadiene, 1,3-dichloropropene,
ethylene dichloride, and chloroform. We reviewed the 2017 NEI to
determine whether CMAS facilities reported emissions of 1,3-butadiene,
chloroform 1,3-dichloropropene, and ethylene dichloride. Based on this
review, we determined that at most CMAS facilities that emit 1,3-
butadiene, chloroform, 1,3-dichloropropene, and ethylene dichloride,
small amounts of these HAP are emitted from fugitive sources. Most of
the reported emissions are attributed to non-source category emission
sources. Based on this information, the EPA is not proposing to
implement a fenceline monitoring program for non-EtO pollutants under
CAA section 112(d)(6). However, we are proposing a
[[Page 7974]]
fenceline monitoring program to limit fugitive EtO emissions under CAA
section 112(d)(5), as discussed in section IV.A.7 of this preamble and
in further detail in the document titled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis and CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for Fenceline Monitoring for Chemical Manufacturing Process
Units Associated with the Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP
available in the docket for this action.
D. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for
those actions?
In addition to the proposed GACT standards pursuant to CAA
112(d)(5) (see sections IV.A and IV.B of this preamble) and our
proposed actions on the CAA 112(d)(6) review (see section IV.C of this
preamble), we are also proposing other changes to the CMAS NESHAP,
including: revisions to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to
require the use of electronic reporting of certain reports; performance
testing once every 5 years for batch and continuous process vents to
demonstrate compliance with emission limits; and corrections to section
reference errors and other minor editorial revisions. Our rationale and
proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators subject to the CMAS
NESHAP submit electronic copies of required notification of compliance
status reports, performance test reports, flare management plans, and
periodic reports (including fenceline monitoring reports) through the
EPA's Central Data Exchange using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) (see proposed edits to 40 CFR
63.11496(f)(3)(ii) for notification of compliance status reports
associated with the HAP metals emissions limit, proposed 40 CFR
63.11501(b) for notification of compliance status reports, 40 CFR
63.11496(g)(1)(iv) for performance test reports, 40 CFR 63.11501(d) for
semiannual compliance reports, and references to flare requirements
which include flare management plans in proposed entries 4.a to tables
2 and 3 to subpart VVVVVV of part 63 and proposed entry 5.a to table 5
to subpart VVVVVV of part 63). A description of the electronic data
submission process is provided in the document titled Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in the docket for this action.
The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \50\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an
electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Flare management plans
would be uploaded as a PDF file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For semiannual compliance reports (including fenceline monitoring
reports), the proposed rules require that owners and operators use an
appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A
draft version of the proposed templates for these reports is included
in the docket for this action.\51\ The EPA specifically requests
comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates. We
are proposing owners and operators begin using the templates for
semiannual compliance reports other than fenceline reports within 3
years of the publication date of the final rule in the Federal
Register, or after the reporting template for the subpart has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later.
Owners and operators would begin using the templates for fenceline
monitoring reports starting when the first fenceline monitoring report
is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See
part_63_subpart_VVVVVV_63.11501(d)_semiannual_compliance.xlsx
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in these proposed
rulemakings will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
Tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.\52\ Electronic
reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving
time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies,
minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and
accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the
public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's
plan \53\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the
EPA's Agency-wide policy \54\ developed in response to the White
House's Digital Government Strategy.\55\ For more information on the
benefits of electronic reporting, see the document titled Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.11503(b)(5) that the approval
to an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA proposed
for the CMAS NESHAP cannot be delegated to state, local, or Tribal
agencies.
\53\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\54\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\55\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Affirmative Defense
As part of the December 21, 2012, CMAS NESHAP final rule (see 77 FR
75740), the EPA included the ability to assert an affirmative defense
to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions (see 40 CFR
63.11501(e)) in an effort to create a system that incorporated some
flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many
types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while
simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts,
emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond
the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its case-
by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these
circumstances, it included the affirmative defense provision to provide
a more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
(holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement discretion approach
is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73
(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more formalized approach to consideration
of ``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.''). Under the
EPA's regulatory
[[Page 7975]]
affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a
judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements
of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not
be assessed. However, the court vacated the affirmative defense in one
of the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055
(D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA
section 112 rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement
kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an
affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under the
CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases
lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the court
found: ``As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts
determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are
`appropriate.' '' See NRDC, 749 F.3d at 1063 (``[U]nder this statute,
deciding whether penalties are `appropriate' in a given private civil
suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.'').\56\ In light of NRDC, the
EPA is proposing to remove all of the regulatory affirmative defense
provisions from the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11501(e) in its entirety
and the definition of ``affirmative defense'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(b). As
explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions
standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-
case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as appropriate.
Further, as the court recognized, in an EPA or citizen enforcement
action, the court has the discretion to consider any defense raised and
determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 749 F.3d at 1064
(arguments that violation was caused by unavoidable technology failure
can be made to the courts in future civil cases when the issue arises).
The same is true for the presiding officer in EPA administrative
enforcement actions.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The court's reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil judicial
actions. The court noted that ``EPA's ability to determine whether
penalties should be assessed for CAA violations extends only to
administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by a
court.'' Id.
\57\ Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA's authority
to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that are available
in administrative enforcement actions, we are not including such an
affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As explained above, such
an affirmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of
penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative
proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. Cf. CAA
section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the court to
take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously proposed to remove the affirmative defense
provisions from the CMAS NESHAP as part of the Removal of Affirmative
Defense Provisions from Specified New Source Performance Standards and
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants action (see
89 FR 52425, June 24, 2024). We now propose the removal of these
provisions as part of this action. We are soliciting comment on our
proposal to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the CMAS
NESHAP as part of this rulemaking. Comments previously submitted on the
Removal of Affirmative Defense Provisions from Specified New Source
Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants proposal will not be considered as part of this action
and must be submitted to the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2024-0303) in order to be considered.
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
We are proposing several technical amendments and definition
revisions to improve the clarity and enforceability of certain
provisions in the CMAS NESHAP. This section of the preamble described
these additional proposed revisions and our rationale.
a. Certain Definitions That Refer to the HON
We note that to remove redundancy and improve consistency, the EPA
recently finalized moving all of the definitions from NESHAP subpart G
(i.e., 40 CFR 63.111) into the definition section of NESHAP subpart F
(i.e., 40 CFR 63.101) (see 89 FR 42932, May 16, 2024). Given that the
CMAS NESHAP directly references these subparts for certain definitions
(see 40 CFR 63.11502(a)), we are proposing to revise the phrasing used
in 40 CFR 63.11502(a) to point to NESHAP subpart F in instances where a
definition in the CMAS NESHAP points to NESHAP subpart G. We are also
proposing editorial changes in 40 CFR 63.11502(b) that clarify
references in the CMAS NESHAP definition of ``point of determination''
to properly cite the correct HON subpart.
b. Performance Testing
The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iii) and 40 CFR
63.11497(g)(1)(iii) performance testing once every 5 years to
demonstrate compliance with organic HAP emission limits for batch and
continuous process vents and storage tanks (for owners and operators
that route emissions to a control device other than a flare).
Similarly, we are also proposing at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(iv), (4), and
(5) performance testing once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance
with the metal HAP emission limit for batch and continuous process
vents. We determined that periodic emission testing should be required
to help ensure continuous compliance. Currently, facilities conduct a
one-time performance test, engineering assessment, or design evaluation
and then monitor operating parameters. A design evaluation (in lieu of
performance testing) is currently allowed at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) for
determining initial compliance with a percent reduction or outlet
concentration process vent organic HAP emission limit. A design
evaluation (in lieu of performance testing) is also currently allowed
at 40 CFR 63.985(b)(1)(i) (via items 1.b, 2.a, and 3.a of table 5 to
the CMAS NESHAP) for determining initial compliance with a percent
reduction or outlet concentration storage tank organic HAP emission
limit. An engineering assessment (in lieu of performance testing) is
currently allowed at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(ii) for determining initial
compliance with the percent reduction process vent metal HAP emission
limit. However, we are proposing to remove the design evaluation option
at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP, and the
engineering assessment option at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(ii), and
instead, require on-going performance tests at proposed 40 CFR
63.11496(f)(3)(iv), (4), and (5), and 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iii) (for
owners and operators using a control device other than a flare to
comply with the emission limits and other requirements for batch and
continuous process vents) and 40 CFR 63.11497(g)(1)(iii) (for owners
and operators using a control device other than a flare to comply with
the emission limits and other requirements for storage tanks). We are
proposing that the on-going performance tests be conducted at a minimum
frequency of once every 5 years to supplement the parameter monitoring
and to ensure that emission controls continue to operate as
demonstrated during the initial performance test. We are soliciting
comment and data on whether design evaluations and engineering
assessments are appropriate for demonstrating compliance for certain
APCDs.
We are also proposing to add a performance testing requirement at
40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iii) and 40 CFR 63.11497(g)(1)(iii) intended to
replace a
[[Page 7976]]
portion of the performance testing requirements of 40 CFR
63.997(e)(1)(i). The proposal does not include the language that
precludes startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing, and instead
allows performance testing during periods of startup or shutdown if
specified by the Administrator. In addition, as specified in 40 CFR
63.997(e)(1)(i), performance tests should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is also
proposing to add language at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iii) and 40 CFR
63.11497(g)(1)(iii) that requires the owner or operator maintain
records of 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 the entire range of normal
operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if
such emissions are not expected during maximum production.
c. Other Editorial and Technical Corrections
The EPA is proposing additional changes that address technical and
editorial corrections for the CMAS NESHAP. The most significant of
these corrections are summarized in table 11 of this preamble. Please
see the document Proposed Regulation Edits for 40 CFR part 63 Subpart
VVVVVV: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, available in the docket for this
rulemaking, to review all of the proposed technical and editorial
corrections.
Table 11--Proposed Technical and Editorial Corrections for the CMAS NESHAP (Not Discussed Elsewhere in This
Preamble)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Issue summary Proposed revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.11494(c)(2)(iv)............ Provision refers to specific NAICS codes The EPA is proposing to add
but does not specify which version (i.e., language to specify the 2007
year) to use. version of the NAICS code.
40 CFR 63.11495(d)................... Provision does not include all language on The EPA is proposing to add
the general duty to minimize emissions. the sentence ``The general
duty to minimize emissions
does not require the owner
or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required
by the applicable standard
have been achieved.''
40 CFR 63.11496(g)(5)................ Provision is redundant to the language at The EPA is proposing to
40 CFR 63.11496(i). remove the provision to
eliminate redundancy and
reduce confusion with how
the standards are applied.
40 CFR 63.11497(a)................... Provision does not contain a heading; The EPA is proposing to add
therefore, is inconsistent with other the heading: ``Organic HAP
paragraphs within the section. emissions from storage
tanks'' for consistency with
the rest of the paragraphs
included in the section.
40 CFR 63.11497(c)................... Provision does not contain a heading; The EPA is proposing to add
therefore, is inconsistent with other the heading: ``SSM
paragraphs within the section. provisions'' for consistency
with the rest of the
paragraphs included in the
section.
40 CFR 63.11498(b)................... Provision provides an exemption for Given that in the October 29,
certain wastewater streams during periods 2009, final rule the EPA
of startup and shutdown. removed the exemption from
emissions standards for
periods of SSM in accordance
with a decision of the
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019
(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735
(U.S. 2010), the EPA is
proposing to remove the
sentence ``The requirements
in Item 2 of table 6 to this
subpart do not apply during
periods of startup or
shutdown.''
40 CFR 63.11500(a)(2)................ Provision contains a cross reference error The EPA is proposing to
to table 4 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart correct the reference to
VVVVVV. table 4 with a reference to
table 5.
40 CFR 63.11500(b)................... Provision refers to certain NSPS but does The EPA is proposing to add
not include the most recent promulgated NSPS subparts VVa, VVb,
versions of certain NSPS. IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa to
allow owners and operators
to comply with any of the
requirements in these rules
that are at least as
stringent as the
corresponding requirements
in the CMAS NESHAP to
constitute compliance with
the CMAS NESHAP.
40 CFR 63.11501(c)(1)(vii) and (viii) Certain provisions are specific to The EPA is proposing to
and (d)(1) and (8). malfunctions and are being clarified to revise the malfunction and
include any deviation. Also, the deviation recordkeeping and
deviation reporting provision does not reporting requirements to
specify all the information to be clarify what must be
reported. maintained as records and
reported.
40 CFR 63.11501(d)................... Provision does not specify how to report The EPA is proposing to
basic facility information. clarify that all semiannual
compliance reports must
contain the company name and
address (including county),
as well as the beginning and
ending dates of the
reporting period.
40 CFR 63.11501(d)................... Provision allows facilities to skip The EPA is proposing to
semiannual reporting for periods where no remove this exemption as it
events described by 40 CFR 63.11501(d)(1)- contradicts the General
(8) occur. Provisions at 40 CFR
63.10(e)(3)(v) and revise
the paragraph to include a
reference to 40 CFR
63.10(e)(3)(v).
40 CFR 63.11501(d)(1)................ Provision does not specify what The EPA is proposing to
information to collect when a deviation clarify that owners and
occurs. operators must report the
start date, start time,
duration in hours, cause, a
list of the affected sources
or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted
over any emission limit, a
description of the method
used to estimate the
emissions, actions taken to
minimize emissions, and any
corrective action taken to
return the affected unit to
its normal or usual manner
of operation for each
deviation from the
standards.
40 CFR 63.11502(b)................... The definition of ``batch process vent'' The EPA is proposing to
does not consider the impacts of the update the definition to
proposed EtO standards. clarify that the exemption
that ``emission streams from
emission episodes that are
undiluted and uncontrolled
containing less than 50 ppmv
HAP are not part of any
batch process vent'' does
not apply to batch process
vents in EtO service.
40 CFR 63.11502(b)................... The definition of ``continuous process The EPA is proposing to
vent'' does not consider the impacts of clarify that the 0.005
the proposed EtO standards. weight percent total organic
HAP criteria at 40 CFR
63.107(d) does not apply for
continuous process vents in
EtO service.
[[Page 7977]]
40 CFR 63.11502(b)................... The definition of ``continuous process The EPA is proposing to
vent'' improperly relies on the control replace the references to 40
criteria of the HON as detailed at 40 CFR CFR 63.107(i) with a similar
63.107(i). provision that relies on the
requirements of table 3 in
40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV.
40 CFR 63.11502(b)................... The definition of ``in organic HAP The EPA is proposing to
service'' does not consider the impact of revise the definition to
the proposed EtO standards for equipment specify that any piece of
leaks and the proposed LDAR program for equipment in EtO service is
all equipment leaks, nor does it consider also in organic HAP service
that the proposed term for ``heat and establish that, for the
exchange system'' uses the phrase ``in proposed LDAR programs
organic HAP service''. associated with equipment
and heat exchange systems,
in organic HAP service means
``that a piece of equipment
or heat exchange system
either contains or contacts
a fluid (liquid or gas) that
is at least 5 percent by
weight of total organic
HAP's as determined
according to the provisions
of 40 CFR 63.180(d).'' The
EPA is also proposing to
clarify that for purposes of
the definition of ``heat
exchange system'', the term
``equipment'' in Sec.
63.180(d) includes heat
exchange systems.
40 CFR 63.11502(b)................... The definition of ``process vessel'' is The EPA is proposing to
contradictory with the definition of revise the definition of
``continuous process vent.'' ``process vessel'' to remove
reactors and distillation
units from the list of
provided examples given that
reactors and distillation
units are a source of
continuous process vents
(i.e., some, or all, of a
gas stream originates ``as a
continuous flow from an air
oxidation reactor,
distillation unit, or
reactor during operation of
the chemical manufacturing
process unit'').
40 CFR 63.11502(b)................... The definition of ``wastewater'' does not The EPA is proposing to
consider the impact of the proposed EtO specify that the phrase
standards. ``and that contains at least
5 ppmw of any HAP listed in
table 9 to subpart G of this
part and has an annual
average flow rate of 0.02
liters per minute'' does not
apply to wastewater in
ethylene oxide service.
Table 9 to subpart VVVVVV of Part 63. Entries include language specific to The EPA is proposing to
malfunctions. revise the entries for
63.10(b)(2)(ii), (c)(10),
(c)(11), and (d)(5) to
reflect the changes to the
malfunction and deviation
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Table 9 to subpart VVVVVV of Part 63. Entries do not consider EtO specific The EPA is proposing to
monitoring requirements. update table 9 to the CMAS
NESHAP to specify which
General Provisions do not
apply for EtO specific
sources to be consistent
with the proposed EtO
standards.
Various.............................. Rule contains incorrect phrases, does not The EPA is proposing to make
contain certain phrases, or incorrectly editorial corrections where
cross references other provisions. necessary including, but not
limited to, adding missing
words, correcting errors,
updating acronyms, and
correcting cross references.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?
The proposed amendments in this rulemaking for adoption under CAA
section 112(d)(5) and (6) (see sections IV.A through IV.C of this
preamble) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA
under section 112(i). For all the EtO requirements we are proposing
under CAA section 112(d)(5) (see section IV.A of this preamble), we are
proposing at 40 CFR 63.11494(l) that existing affected sources and
affected sources that were new sources under the current CMAS NESHAP
(i.e., they commenced construction or reconstruction after October 6,
2008 and on or before January 22, 2025) must comply with all of the
amendments no later than 2 years after the effective date of the final
rule or upon startup, whichever is later. For all the non-EtO
requirements we are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(5) and all the
requirements we are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6) (see sections
IV.B and IV.C of this preamble, respectively), we are proposing at 40
CFR 63.11494(k) that existing affected sources and affected sources
that were new sources under the current CMAS NESHAP (i.e., they
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 6, 2008 and on
or before January 22, 2025) must comply with all of the amendments no
later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.
For fenceline monitoring (see section IV.A.7 of this preamble), we
are proposing at 40 CFR 63.11494(m) that owners and operators of all
existing affected sources and all affected sources that were new under
the current rule (i.e., sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 6, 2008, and on or before January 22,
2025) must begin fenceline monitoring 2 years after the effective date
of the final rule and, starting 3 years after the effective date of the
final rule, perform root cause analysis and apply corrective action
requirements upon exceedance of an annual average concentration action
level.
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the
compliance date shall be as expeditious as practicable, but no later
than 3 years after the effective date of the standard (``Section
112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to
any emission standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].''
Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir.
2013)). In determining what compliance period is as expeditious as
practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to plan and
construct projects and change operating procedures. As provided in CAA
section 112(i) and 5 U.S.C. 801(3), all new affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025 would
be required to comply with these requirements upon the effective date
of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later (see proposed 40
CFR 63.11494(h) and (j)).
1. Rationale for Proposed Compliance Dates of Proposed CAA
Section112(d)(5) and (6) Amendments
Many of the GACT requirements that we are proposing under CAA
section 112(d)(5) address emissions of EtO from equipment leaks, heat
exchange systems, process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at CMAS
processes (see sections IV.A.1 through IV.A.4 of this
[[Page 7978]]
preamble). The proposed provisions will require time to plan, purchase,
and install equipment for EtO control. For example, for CMAS process
vents in EtO service (see section IV.A.3 of this preamble for
additional details), if the affected source cannot demonstrate 99.9
percent control of EtO emissions, or reduce EtO emissions to less than
1 ppmv (from each process vent) or 5 lb/yr (for all combined process
vents), then the owner or operator would need to install a new control
system, improve their existing control system, or otherwise reduce
emissions. In addition, we are proposing a suite of operational and
monitoring requirements for flares that emit EtO (see section IV.A.6 of
this preamble). We anticipate that the proposed provisions for flares
that emit EtO (used to control EtO emissions from process vents and
storage tanks) would require the installation of new monitoring
equipment, and we project owners and operators would need to install
new control systems to monitor and adjust assist gas (air or steam)
addition rates. Similar to the addition of new monitoring equipment and
control systems, these new monitoring requirements for flares that emit
EtO would require engineering evaluations, solicitation and review of
vendor quotes, contracting and installation of the equipment, and
operator training. Installation of new monitoring and control equipment
on flares will require the flare to be taken out of service. Depending
on the configuration of the flares and flare header system, taking the
flare out of service may also require a significant portion of the CMPU
to be shutdown. Therefore, we are proposing a compliance date of 2
years after the publication date of the final rule, or upon startup,
whichever is later, to comply with the proposed EtO requirements for
all existing affected sources and all new affected sources under the
current rules that commenced construction or reconstruction after
October 6, 2008, and on or before January 22, 2025. For all new
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
January 22, 2025, we are proposing owners or operators comply with the
EtO requirements upon the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later. We are soliciting comment on whether an
alternate compliance timeframe (i.e., shorter or longer than the
proposed 2 years) would be more appropriate for the EtO requirements
established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5).
Compliance dates for the fenceline monitoring provisions proposed
under CAA section 112(d)(5) consider the amount of time that it will
take owners and operators to develop their siting plans and secure the
capabilities to conduct the monitoring and analyze the results. For
fenceline monitoring, the compliance timeline also must consider time
to allow commercial labs to conduct the needed method development,
expand capacity, and develop the logistics needed to meet the
requirements in the final rule. In addition, time is needed to read and
assess the new fenceline monitoring requirements; prepare sampling and
analysis plans; develop and submit site-specific monitoring plans;
identify representative, accessible, and secure monitoring locations
for offsite monitors and obtain permission from the property owner to
both place and routinely access the monitors; make any necessary
physical improvements to fencelines to be able to site monitors,
including construction of access roads, physical fencing, and potential
drainage improvements; and obtain approval of any necessary capital
expenditures. Therefore, we are proposing that owners and operators of
all existing sources and all new affected sources under the current
rules that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 6,
2008, and on or before January 22, 2025 must begin fenceline monitoring
2 years after the publication date of the final rule and must perform
root cause analysis and apply corrective action requirements upon
exceedance of an annual average concentration action level starting 3
years after the publication date of the final rule. For all new
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
January 22, 2025, we are proposing that owners or operators begin
fenceline monitoring upon the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later. We are also proposing to require quarterly
reporting of fenceline results beginning 1 year after monitoring begins
for such sources.
For PRDs, we are establishing management practices in the CMAS
NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(5) that require a process hazard
analysis and implementation of a minimum of three redundant measures to
prevent atmospheric releases (see section IV.B.2 of this preamble).
Alternately, owners or operators may elect to install closed vent
systems to route these PRDs to a flare, drain (for liquid thermal
relief valves), or other control system. We anticipate that sources
will need to identify the most appropriate preventive measures or
control approach; design, install, and test the system; install
necessary process instrumentation and safety systems; and may need to
time installations with equipment shutdown or maintenance outages.
Therefore, for all existing affected sources, and all new affected
sources under the current CMAS NESHAP that commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 6, 2008, and on or before January 22,
2025, we are proposing a compliance date of 3 years from the
publication date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is
later) for owners or operators to comply with the management practices
for atmospheric PRD releases. For all new affected sources that
commence construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025, we are
proposing owners or operators comply with the management practices for
atmospheric PRD releases upon the effective date of the final rule or
upon startup, whichever is later.
Other amendments we are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(5)
include LDAR requirements for pressure vessels (see section IV.B.1 of
this preamble). We are also proposing new LDAR requirements under CAA
section 112(d)(6) for equipment leaks in organic HAP service and heat
exchange systems with cooling water flow rates greater than 8,000 gpm
(see section IV.C.1 of this preamble). We project some owners and
operators would require engineering evaluations, solicitation and
review of vendor quotes, contracting and installation of monitoring
equipment, and operator training. In addition, facilities will need
time to read and understand the amended rule requirements and update
standard operating procedures. Also, any of these proposed provisions
may require additional time to plan, purchase, and install equipment
for emissions control; and even if not, the EPA recognizes the
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose. Lastly, other recent rulemakings are requiring
updates to LDAR provisions for hundreds of sources not previously
required to do EPA Method 21 monitoring (see the Gasoline Distribution
NESHAP, 89 FR 39304 May 8, 2024). As such, the demand on contractor
support may be greater than can be immediately accommodated. Therefore,
for all existing affected sources, and all new affected sources under
the current rules that commenced construction or reconstruction after
October 6, 2008, and on or before January 22, 2025, we are proposing a
compliance date of 3 years from the publication date of the final rule
(or upon startup, whichever is
[[Page 7979]]
later) for owners or operators to comply with these other proposed
amendments. For all new affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after January 22, 2025, we are proposing owners or
operators comply with these other proposed amendments upon the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
2. Rationale for Proposed Compliance Dates of Other Proposed Amendments
We are proposing electronic reporting requirements (see section
IV.D.1 of this preamble), and we anticipate that facilities would need
some time to successfully accomplish these reporting revisions
including time to read and understand the amended rule requirements, to
make any necessary adjustments (including adjusting standard operating
procedures), and to convert reporting mechanisms and install necessary
hardware and software. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for
compliance with the new proposed electronic reporting requirements for
flare management plans and periodic reports, the EPA considers a period
of 3 years after the publication date of the final rule to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable. Thus, we are proposing that
all existing affected sources, and all new affected sources under the
current rule that commenced construction or reconstruction after
October 6, 2008, and on or before January 22, 2025 be in compliance
with these revised requirements upon initial startup or within 3 years
of the publication date of the final rule, whichever is later. For all
new affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
January 22, 2025, we are proposing owners or operators comply with
these revised requirements upon the effective date of the final rule or
upon startup, whichever is later. However, we are proposing at 40 CFR
63.11496(g)(1)(iv) to provide 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or
operators of all affected sources to comply with the requirement to
submit performance test reports electronically following the procedure
specified in 40 CFR 63.9(k). We are also proposing at 40 CFR
63.11501(b) to provide 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators of
all affected sources to submit all subsequent Notification of
Compliance Status reports in PDF format electronically following the
procedure specified in 40 CFR 63.9(k).
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that there are 251 facilities subject to the CMAS
NESHAP. There are another 29 facilities that would become subject to
the rule if EtO were to be added to table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV, as proposed. The list of facilities is available in the
document titled List of Facilities Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
This proposed action would reduce HAP and VOC emissions from CMAS
emission sources. We estimate that the proposed amendments to the
NESHAP would reduce overall HAP emissions, not including EtO emission
reductions, from CMAS by approximately 158 tpy. In addition, the EPA
estimates reductions of approximately 4.6 tpy of EtO emissions based on
the emissions inventories. With respect to secondary impacts on non-HAP
pollutants, the EPA estimates that the proposed amendments would reduce
VOC emissions by 1,557 tpy and on net would reduce emissions of methane
by 251 tpy.
The EPA also estimates that the proposed action would result in
secondary impacts for greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air
pollutant emissions. The increased electricity and natural gas use to
power some of the proposed controls would increase emissions of several
pollutants, including an estimated increase of 36 tpy of carbon
monoxide (CO), 57,000 tpy of carbon dioxide (CO2), 43 tpy of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) (including 0.97 tpy of nitrous oxide
(N2O)), 3 tpy of particulate matter (PM2.5), and
0.26 tpy of sulfur dioxide (SO2). On net, after accounting
for the methane emission reductions and the increases in CO2
and N2O emissions, this proposed rule would increase GHG
emissions on a CO2-equivalent basis (CO2e) by an
estimated 50,000 tpy. More information about the estimated emission
reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed action for the CMAS
NESHAP can be found in the documents titled Economic Impact Analysis
and Secondary Impacts for Flares, Thermal Oxidizers, and Wastewater
Controls for the CMAS NESHAP, which are available in the docket for
this action; and in documents referenced in sections IV.A through IV.C
of this preamble. The EPA solicits comments on the quantitative aspects
of the emissions reductions and secondary impacts of this proposed
action.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The EPA estimates the cost of the requirements in this proposed
action would be approximately $37.6 million (in 2022 dollars for the
entire period of analysis) in total capital costs and $36.4 million in
total annual costs (including product recovery), based on our analyses
of the proposed actions described in sections IV.A through IV.C of this
preamble. The `total annual costs' are the sum of the annualized
capital costs and other annual costs (e.g., operating and maintenance
costs, recordkeeping and reporting costs). To obtain annualized capital
costs, a capital recovery factor is multiplied by the capital costs.
The capital recovery factor is based on the lifetime of the capital
equipment as well as the interest rate. The total annual cost of the
proposed action without including the value of product recovery is
estimated to be about $38 million. Thus, product recovery accounts for
about $1.6 million in annual cost savings, or about four percent of the
total annual costs without product recovery.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impacts of this proposal, including the small entity
impact analysis, are discussed in greater detail in the document titled
Economic Impact Analysis, which is available in the docket for this
action.
As part of fulfilling the analytical requirements of Executive
Orders 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094, the EPA presents
estimates of the present value (PV) of the costs over the 15-year
analytical period from 2027 to 2041. Costs are in 2022 dollars and
discounted to 2027 at a two percent discount rate per the
recommendation in OMB Circular A-4. The EPA also presents the
equivalent annualized value (EAV) at a two percent discount rate. The
EAV takes the non-uniform stream of costs (i.e., different costs in
different years) and converts them into a single annual value that, if
paid each year from 2027 to 2041, would equal the original stream of
values in PV terms.
The PV of the costs over the 15-year period from 2027 to 2041
without including the value of product recovery is estimated to be $495
million at a two percent discount rate and the EAV is $38.5 million.
The PV of the costs including the value of product recovery is
estimated to be $474 million at a two percent discount rate and the EAV
is $37 million.
This proposed action impacts 58 small entities, which own a total
of 64 CMAS facilities. The EPA evaluates economic impacts of
rulemakings on
[[Page 7980]]
small entities by examining total annual cost estimates compared to the
annual revenues of the companies (i.e., entities) that are the ultimate
owners of the facilities affected by the rule. The EPA estimates cost-
to-sales ratios, which are the total annual costs estimated for each
entity divided by the entity's annual revenues. This ratio provides a
measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate owners of CMAS
facilities.
The EPA estimates the average cost-to-sales ratio for small
entities impacted by the proposal will be 0.3 percent with a maximum
cost-to-sales ratio estimated at 5.5 percent, not considering the value
of product recovery due to compliance (i.e., the cost savings). With
product recovery, the EPA estimates that the average cost-to-sales
ratio for small entities impacted by the proposal will be 0.3 percent
with a maximum cost-to-sales ratio of 5.4 percent. We estimate that
about nine percent of impacted small entities (five small entities out
of a total of 58) will incur total annual costs greater than one
percent of their annual revenue, and two percent of small entities (one
small entity in total) will incur total annual costs greater than three
percent of their annual revenue. The number of entities with a one
percent or greater cost-to-sales ratio falls to three entities, or five
percent of all small entities, when the total annual cost estimates
include the value of product recovery, and one entity has a cost-to-
sales ratio that remains above three percent. The EPA does not
anticipate that this proposed action will have a substantial impact on
a significant number of small entities. The EPA also does not expect
this proposed action to have significant market impacts or employment
impacts.
It is important to note that the small entities that own facilities
affected by the proposed EtO standards have relatively higher estimated
cost-to-sales ratios, with an average cost-to-sales ratio of 3 percent
for the three EtO facilities that are owned by small entities. The
small entity with the maximum cost-to-sales ratio of 5.5 percent owns a
facility affected by the proposed EtO standards. These three small
entities also have smaller average annual revenues compared to the
whole population of small entities, averaging $47 million in annual
revenues compared to $230 million for all small entities. For
additional details on the costs of this proposed rulemaking, please see
the document titled Economic Impact Analysis, available in the docket
for this action.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission
reductions of HAP associated with this proposed action. The EPA
currently does not have sufficient methods to monetize benefits
associated with HAP reductions and risk reductions for this rulemaking.
However, we estimate that the final rule amendments would reduce EtO
emissions by 4.6 tpy and expect that these reductions will lower the
risk of adverse health effects, including cancer, for individuals in
communities near CMAS facilities. For additional information on the
nonmonetized benefits of this rulemaking and a qualitative discussion
of the health risks associated with exposure to EtO and several other
HAP, please see the document titled Economic Impact Analysis, available
in the docket for this action. The EPA solicits comments on the
benefits of HAP reductions discussed in this section.
The secondary emissions impacts estimated for this proposed action
include net reductions in VOC and methane emissions, and increases in
emissions of PM2.5, SO2, NOX
(including N2O), CO2, and CO. The EPA was not
able to monetize the health and environmental impacts associated with
the estimated changes in criteria air pollutant emissions for this
proposed rule, which include increased PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions and changes in VOC and
NOX emissions, which impact the formation of ground-level
ozone.
The EPA provided monetized estimates of the impacts associated with
the methane emissions reductions and the net increases in
CO2 and N2O emissions using the EPA's social cost
of greenhouse gas (SC-GHG) estimates. The estimated climate benefits
are negative on net. The PV of the climate benefits for the 15-year
period from 2027 to 2041 is estimated to be negative $195 million in
2022 dollars discounted at a two percent rate, and the EAV is estimated
to be negative $15 million.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential environmental
justice (EJ) concerns if it could: (1) create new disproportionate
impacts on communities with EJ concerns; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; or (3)
present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns through this action under development.
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three
questions: (1) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (2) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (3) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared
to the baseline?'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis'', U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section
3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EJ analysis is presented for the purpose of providing the
public with as full as possible an understanding of the potential
impacts of this proposed action. The EPA notes that analysis of such
impacts is distinct from the determinations proposed in this action
under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory factors
the EPA is required to consider under that section.
To examine the potential for EJ concerns, the EPA conducted three
different demographic analyses: a proximity analysis, a baseline cancer
risk-based analysis (i.e., before implementation of any controls
required by this proposed action), and a post-control cancer risk-based
analysis (i.e., after implementation of the controls required by this
proposed action). The proximity demographic analysis is an assessment
of individual demographic groups in the total population living within
10 km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. The
baseline risk-based demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups in the population living within 10 km and
50 km of the facilities prior to the implementation of any controls
required by this proposed action (``baseline''). The post-control risk-
based demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to individual
[[Page 7981]]
demographic groups in the population living within 10 km and 50 km of
the facilities after implementation of the controls required by this
proposed action (``post-control''). The risk-based demographic analyses
were performed for the following three different HAP emissions
scenarios (described in sections V.F.1 through V.F.3 of this preamble):
CMAS categories HAP emissions (10 km and 50 km), CMAS whole-facility
HAP emissions (10 km and 50 km), and CMAS community HAP emissions (10
km only).
1. CMAS Categories Demographics
For the CMAS categories, the EPA examined the potential for the 247
CMAS facilities (for which the EPA had HAP emissions inventories for
emissions from the CMAS categories) to pose concerns to communities
living in proximity to facilities, both in the baseline and under the
control option established in this proposed action. Specifically, to
examine the potential for EJ concerns, the EPA conducted three
different demographic analyses of the populations living within 10 km
and 50 km of the CMAS facilities: a proximity analysis, baseline cancer
and noncancer risk-based analyses (i.e., before implementation of any
controls required by this proposed action), and post-control cancer and
noncancer risk-based analyses (i.e., after implementation of the
controls required by this proposed action). In this preamble, we focus
on the results from the demographic analyses using a 10 km radius
because this area captures the majority of the population with higher
cancer risks due to HAP emissions from CMAS facilities. Specifically,
100 percent of the population with baseline cancer risks greater than
or equal to 50-in-1 million and with noncancer hazard indices greater
than 1 from emissions associated with the CMAS categories live within
10 km of the CMAS facilities. The methodology and detailed results of
the demographic analysis, including the demographic analyses for
populations living within 10 km and 50 km of facilities, are presented
in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) Facilities--
Source Category Analysis of Proposed Amendments, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking. The following paragraphs briefly
summarize the results of these demographic analyses.
For all three demographic analyses, the affected populations (i.e.,
those living within 10 km of the facilities) are compared to the
national population. The total population, population percentages, and
population count for each demographic group for the entire U.S.
population are shown in the column titled ``Nationwide Average for
Reference'' in tables 11 through 13 of this preamble. These national
data are provided as a frame of reference to compare the results of the
proximity analysis, the baseline cancer and noncancer risk-based
analyses, and the post-control cancer and noncancer risk-based
analysis. The column titled ``Proximity Analysis for Population living
within 10 km of CMAS Facilities'' in tables 11 through 13 of this
preamble shows the share and count of people for each of the
demographic categories for the total population living within 10 km
(~6.2 miles) of CMAS facilities. These are the results of the proximity
analysis and are repeated in tables 11 through 13 of this preamble for
ease of comparison to the risk-based analyses discussed later.
The results of the proximity analysis indicate that a total of 33.7
million people live within 10 km of the 247 CMAS facilities
analyzed.\59\ The percent of the population living within 10 km of the
CMAS facilities is above the corresponding national average for the
following demographic groups: Black, Hispanic or Latino, Other/
Multiracial, people living below the poverty level, people living below
two times the poverty level, people over the age of 25 without a high
school diploma, and linguistic isolation. The results of the proximity
analysis indicate that the proportion of other demographic groups
living within 10 km of CMAS facilities is similar to or below the
national average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ There are 248 CMAS facilities with emissions data specific
to the categories, however, one facility has no population living
within 10 km and thus was not included in the EJ analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The baseline cancer risk-based demographic analysis focuses on
populations that have higher cancer risks. The baseline risk-based
demographic analysis results are shown in the ``baseline'' column of
tables 11 through 13 of this preamble. This analysis focused on the
populations living within 10 km (~6.2 miles) of the CMAS facilities
with estimated cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from emissions from CMAS categories (table 11 of this
preamble), greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million (table 12 of this
preamble), and greater than 100-in-1 million (table 13 of this
preamble).
The results of the cancer risk-based demographic analysis indicate
that a total of 2 million people living within 10 km of 76 of the CMAS
facilities analyzed have a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million from CMAS HAP emissions. The percent of the population living
within 10 km of these CMAS facilities with cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million is above the corresponding national average for
the following demographic groups: Black, Hispanic or Latino, people
living below the poverty level, people living below two times the
poverty level, people over 25 without a high school diploma, and
linguistic isolation. The percent of the population with cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million that are Black (25 percent) is
higher than in the proximity analysis (19 percent) and is approximately
two times higher than the national average (12 percent). The percent of
the population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million that are Hispanic/Latino (25 percent) is higher than in the
proximity analysis (21 percent) and the national average (19 percent).
The results of the cancer risk-based demographic analysis indicate
that a total of 36,100 people living within 10 km of 15 of the CMAS
facilities analyzed have cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million from CMAS HAP emissions. The percent of the population living
within 10 km of these CMAS facilities with cancer risks greater than or
equal to 50-in-1 million is above the corresponding national average
for the following demographic groups: Hispanic or Latino, people living
below the poverty level, people living below two times the poverty
level, people over 25 without a high school diploma, and linguistic
isolation. The percent of the population with cancer risks greater than
or equal to 50-in-1 million that are Black is at the national average
(12 percent), which is a lower percentage than for the proximity
analysis (19 percent). The percent of the population with cancer risks
greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million that are Hispanic/Latino (40
percent) is about two times that in the proximity analysis (21 percent)
and the national average (19 percent).
The results of the cancer risk-based demographic analysis indicate
that a total of 3,600 people living within 10 km of 4 of the CMAS
facilities analyzed have a cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million
from CMAS HAP emissions. The percent of the population living within 10
km of these CMAS facilities with cancer risks greater than 100-in-1
million is above the corresponding national average for the following
demographic groups: Hispanic or Latino, people living below the poverty
[[Page 7982]]
level, people living below two times the poverty level, and people over
25 without a high school diploma. The percent of the population with
cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million that are Black (5 percent)
is well below the national average (12 percent). The percent of the
population with cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million that are
Hispanic/Latino (34 percent) is over 1.5 times greater than in the
proximity analysis (21 percent) and nearly double the national average
(19 percent).
The results of the noncancer risk-based demographic analysis
indicate that a total of 1,500 people living within 10 km of 2 CMAS
facilities analyzed have a respiratory hazard index greater than 1 from
CMAS HAP emissions. The percent of the population living within 10 km
of these CMAS facilities with respiratory hazard index greater than 1
is above the corresponding national average for the following
demographic groups: Hispanic or Latino (90 percent for the source
categories compared to 19 percent nationwide), people living in
linguistic isolation (15 percent for the source categories compared to
5 percent nationwide), people 25 years old and older without a high
school diploma (33 percent for the source categories compared to 12
percent nationwide), people living below twice the poverty level (44
percent for the source categories compared to 29 percent nationwide),
and people living below the poverty level (24 percent for the source
categories compared to 13 percent nationwide).
The results of the noncancer risk-based demographic analysis
indicate that a total of 1,300 people living within 10 km of 2 CMAS
facilities analyzed have an immunological hazard index greater than 1
from CMAS HAP emissions. The demographic results indicate that the
percentage of the population potentially impacted by CMAS emissions is
greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the following
demographic groups: Hispanic or Latino (90 percent for the source
category compared to 19 percent nationwide), people living in
linguistic isolation (16 percent for the source category compared to 5
percent nationwide), people 25 years old and older without a high
school diploma (33 percent for the source category compared to 12
percent nationwide), people living below twice the poverty level (44
percent for the source category compared to 29 percent nationwide), and
people living below the poverty level (24 percent for the source
category compared to 13 percent nationwide).
The post-control risk-based demographic analysis shows that the
controls required by this proposed action will notably reduce the
number of people who are exposed to cancer risks resulting from
emissions from the CMAS categories at all risk levels. The results of
the post-control risk-based demographics analysis are in the columns
titled ``Post-Control'' of tables 11 through 13 of this preamble. At
greater than or equal to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million, the number of
individuals exposed will decrease from 2.1 million to 1.4 million. The
demographic composition of those individuals exposed to cancer risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million post-control is similar to the
demographic composition of the individuals exposed to a cancer risk of
1-in-1 million at baseline. The number of individuals exposed to cancer
risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million will decrease from 36,100
to 4,400.
The percent of the population living within 10 km of these CMAS
facilities with post-control cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-
in-1 million is above the corresponding national average for the
following demographic groups: Hispanic or Latino, Age 0-17, people
living below poverty, people living below two times poverty, those over
25 without a high school diploma, and linguistic isolation. The percent
of the population with post-control cancer risks greater than or equal
to 50-in-1 million that are Hispanic or Latino (66 percent) is over
three times the national average (19 percent), with 98 percent of this
Hispanic or Latino population living around two CMAS facilities (one in
Illinois and one in Kansas).
After control is implemented, the number of people who are exposed
to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million resulting from emissions
from the CMAS categories will decrease from 3,600 to zero. Therefore,
there are no disparities among demographic groups at this risk level.
The actions of this proposed rulemaking will improve human health of
current and future populations that live near these facilities.
The post-control noncancer risk demographic results are the same as
those for the baseline scenario because the controls being proposed in
this action do not directly reduce the nickel emissions that drive the
noncancer risk.
Table 11--Source Categories: Comparison of Baseline and Post-Control Demographics of Populations With Cancer
Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1-in-1 Million Living Within 10 km of CMAS Facilities to the National Average and
the Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer risk >=1-in-1
Proximity analysis million within 10 km of
Nationwide for total population CMAS facilities
Demographic group average for living within 10 km -------------------------
reference of CMAS facilities Post-
Baseline control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................... 330M 33.7M 2.1M 1.4M
Number of Facilities............................... ........... 247 76 71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.............................................. 60% 49% 45% 40%
[196M] [16.7M] [925K] [564K]
Black.............................................. 12% 19% 25% 26%
[40M] [6.5M] [513K] [377K]
American Indian and Alaskan Native................. 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
[2.1M] [75K] [4.1K] [2.5K]
Hispanic or Latino (white and nonwhite)............ 19% 21% 25% 28%
[63M] [7.1M] [514K] [404K]
Other and Multiracial.............................. 9% 10% 6% 5%
[29M] [3.4M] [119K] [78K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7983]]
Age By Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0 to 17 years.................................. 22% 22% 24% 24%
[74M] [7.4M] [492K] [339K]
Age 18 to 64 years................................. 62% 63% 62% 62%
[203M] [21.3M] [1.3M] [881K]
Age >=65 years..................................... 16% 15% 14% 14%
[53M] [5M] [301K] [205K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level................................ 13% 14% 15% 17%
[42M] [4.7M] [318K] [240K]
Below 2x Poverty Level............................. 30% 31% 36% 39%
[100M] [10.4M] [750K] [554K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......... 12% 13% 15% 16%
[38M] [4.3M] [306K] [232K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated............................ 5% 6% 6% 7%
[17M] [2.1M] [123K] [102K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 American Community
Survey (ACS) 5-year block group averages. Total population count is based on 2020 Decennial Census block
population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR
was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were
unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
K = Thousands, M = Millions.
Table 12--Source Categories: Comparison of Baseline and Post-Control Demographics of Populations With Cancer
Risk Greater Than or Equal to 50-in-1 Million Living Within 10 km of CMAS Facilities to the National Average and
the Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer risk >=50-in-1
Proximity analysis million within 10 km of
Nationwide for total population CMAS facilities
Demographic group average for living within 10 km -------------------------
reference of CMAS facilities Post-
Baseline control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................... 330M 33.7M 36K 4.4K
Number of Facilities............................... ........... 247 15 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.............................................. 60% 49% 39% 28%
[196M] [16.7M] [14K] [1.2K]
Black.............................................. 12% 19% 12% 4%
[40M] [6.5M] [4.5K] [200]
American Indian and Alaskan Native................. 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%
[2.1M] [75K] [<100] [<100]
Hispanic or Latino (white and nonwhite)............ 19% 21% 40% 66%
[63M] [7.1M] [14.4K] [2.9K]
Other and Multiracial.............................. 9% 10% 8% 2%
[29M] [3.4M] [2.9K] [<100]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age By Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0 to 17 years.................................. 22% 22% 30% 34%
[74M] [7.4M] [11K] [1.5K]
[[Page 7984]]
Age 18 to 64 years................................. 62% 63% 60% 59%
[203M] [21.3M] [22K] [2.6K]
Age >=65 years..................................... 16% 15% 10% 7%
[53M] [5M] [3.7K] [300]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level................................ 13% 14% 21% 23%
[42M] [4.7M] [7.5K] [1K]
Below 2x Poverty Level............................. 30% 31% 49% 47%
[100M] [10.4M] [18K] [2.1K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......... 12% 13% 27% 30%
[38M] [4.3M] [10K] [1.3K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated............................ 5% 6% 13% 11%
[17M] [2.1M] [4.5K] [500]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 ACS 5-year block group
averages. Total population count is based on 2020 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR
was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were
unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
K = Thousands, M = Millions.
Table 13--Source Categories: Comparison of Baseline and Post-Control Demographics of Populations With Cancer
Risk Greater Than 100-in-1 Million Living Within 10 km of CMAS Facilities to the National Average and the
Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer risk >100-in-1
Proximity analysis million within 10 km of
Nationwide for total population CMAS facilities
Demographic group average for living within 10 km -------------------------
reference of CMAS facilities Post-
Baseline control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................... 330M 33.7M 3.6K 0
Number of Facilities............................... ........... 247 4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.............................................. 60% 49% 58% 0%
[196M] [16.7M] [2.1K] 0
Black.............................................. 12% 19% 5% 0%
[40M] [6.5M] [200] 0
American Indian and Alaskan Native................. 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%
[2.1M] [75K] [<100] 0
Hispanic or Latino (white and nonwhite)............ 19% 21% 34% 0%
[63M] [7.1M] [1.2K] 0
Other and Multiracial.............................. 9% 10% 3% 0%
[29M] [3.4M] [100] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age By Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0 to 17 years.................................. 22% 22% 34% 0%
[74M] [7.4M] [1.2K] 0
Age 18 to 64 years................................. 62% 63% 55% 0%
[203M] [21.3M] [2K] 0
Age >=65 years..................................... 16% 15% 11% 0%
[53M] [5M] [400] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7985]]
Income by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level................................ 13% 14% 15% 0%
[42M] [4.7M] [500] 0
Below 2x Poverty Level............................. 30% 31% 42% 0%
[100M] [10.4M] [1.5K] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......... 12% 13% 23% 0%
[38M] [4.3M] [800] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated............................ 5% 6% 5% 0%
[17M] [2.1M] [200] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 ACS 5-year block group
averages. Total population count is based on 2020 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR
was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were
unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
K = Thousands, M = Millions.
2. CMAS NESHAP Whole-Facility Demographics
As described in section II.E of this preamble and the document
titled Risk Assessment for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source
(CMAS) Source Categories in Support of the 2025 Technology Review for
the Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, we assessed the facility-wide (or ``whole-facility'') risks
as part of a risk assessment for 278 CMAS facilities, accounting for
HAP emissions from the entire facility and not just those resulting
from CMAS categories as discussed in the section V.F.1 of this
preamble.\60\ The whole-facility risk analysis includes all sources of
HAP emissions at each facility as reported in the emissions inventory
developed using the NEI (described in section II.C.2 of this proposed
rule). The following discussion of the whole-facility demographic
analysis is focused on post-control risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See footnote 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole-facility demographic analysis is an assessment of
individual demographic groups in the total population living within 10
km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. In this
preamble, we focus on the results from the demographic analyses using a
10 km radius because this area captures the majority of the population
with higher cancer and noncancer risks due to HAP emissions from CMAS
facilities. Specifically, 100 percent of the population with baseline
cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million and with
noncancer hazard indices greater than 1 from emissions from the CMAS
categories live within 10 km of the CMAS facilities. The results of the
whole-facility demographic analysis for populations living within 10 km
and 50 km of CMAS facilities are included in the document titled
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Chemical
Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) Facilities: Whole Facility Analysis of
Proposed Amendments which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
The whole-facility demographic analysis post-control results are
shown in table 14 of this preamble. This analysis focused on the
populations living within 10 km of the CMAS facilities with estimated
whole-facility post-control cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-
1 million, greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million, and greater than
100-in-1 million, as well as with estimated whole-facility post-control
noncancer hazard indices greater than 1. The risk analysis indicated
that all emissions from the CMAS facilities, after the reductions
imposed by the proposed rule, expose a total of about 1.65 million
people living around 80 facilities to a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million, 5,600 people living around 10 facilities to a
cancer risk greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million, and zero people
to a cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million. The risk analysis
indicated that all emissions from the CMAS facilities, after the
reductions imposed by the proposed rule, expose a total of about 1,700
people to a respiratory hazard index greater than 1 and about 1,700
people to an immunological hazard index greater than 1 (both values
unchanged from baseline).
When the CMAS whole-facility populations are compared to the CMAS
categories populations in the post-control scenarios, we see 250,000
additional people with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million,
1,200 additional people with risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million, zero additional people with risks greater than 100-in-1
million, 200 additional people with respiratory hazard indices greater
than 1, and 200 additional people with immunological hazard indices
greater than 1.
[[Page 7986]]
The demographic distribution of the whole-facility population with
post-control cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is
almost identical to the distribution of the source category population
with post-control cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
Therefore, the whole-facility population with post-control cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million has disproportionately high
representation from Blacks, Hispanics and Latinos, people living below
the poverty level, people living below two times the poverty level,
those over 25 without a high school diploma, and those that are
linguistically isolated.
The population with post-control cancer risks greater than or equal
to 50-in-1 million in the whole-facility analysis is almost identical
to the distribution of the source category population with post-control
cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million. Therefore, the
whole-facility population with post-control cancer risks greater than
or equal to 50-in-1 million has disproportionately high representation
from Hispanics and Latinos, people living below the poverty level,
people living below two times the poverty level, those over 25 without
a high school diploma, and those that are linguistically isolated. As
such, the Hispanic and Latino population is still disproportionately
represented at 69 percent, which is well above the national average of
19 percent.
Based on results from the whole-facility emissions analysis, there
are zero people with post-control risks greater than 100-in-1 million.
The population with post-control respiratory hazard indices greater
than 1 in the whole-facility analysis is almost identical to the
distribution of the source category population with baseline and post-
control respiratory hazard indices greater than 1. Therefore, the
whole-facility population with post-control respiratory hazard indices
greater than 1 has disproportionately high representation from
Hispanics or Latinos, people living below the poverty level, people
living below two times the poverty level, those over 25 without a high
school diploma, and those who are linguistically isolated. As such, the
Hispanic and Latino population is disproportionately represented at 90
percent, which is well above the national average of 19 percent, and
people living below the poverty level are disproportionately
represented at 24 percent, which is nearly twice the national average
of 13 percent.
The population with post-control immunological hazard indices
greater than 1 in the whole-facility analysis is almost identical to
the distribution of the source category population with baseline and
post-control immunological hazard indices greater than 1. Therefore,
the whole-facility population with post-control immunological hazard
indices greater than 1 has disproportionately high representation from
Hispanics or Latinos, people living below the poverty level, people
living below two times the poverty level, those over 25 without a high
school diploma, and those who are linguistically isolated. As such, the
Hispanic and Latino population is disproportionately represented at 90
percent, which is well above the national average of 19 percent, and
people living below the poverty level are disproportionately
represented at 24 percent, which is nearly twice the national average
of 13 percent.
Table 14--Whole-Facility: Whole-Facility Post-Control Demographics for CMAS Facilities by Risk Level for
Populations Living Within 10 km of Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole-facility post-control cancer
risk for populations within 10 km of
Nationwide CMAS facilities
Demographic group average for --------------------------------------
reference >=1-in-1 >=50-in-1 >100-in-1
million million million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................ 330M 1,651,083 5,625 0
Number of Facilities........................................ ........... 80 10 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White....................................................... 60% 41% 24% 0%
[196M] [670K] [1.4K] 0
Black....................................................... 12% 26% 5% 0%
[40M] [436K] [300] 0
American Indian and Alaskan Native.......................... 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
[2.1M] [3K] [<100] 0
Hispanic or Latino (white and nonwhite)..................... 19% 27% 69% 0%
[63M] [450K] [4K] 0
Other and Multiracial....................................... 9% 6% 1% 0%
[29M] [91K] [<100] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age By Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0 to 17 years........................................... 22% 24% 33% 0%
[74M] [393K] [2K] 0
Age 18 to 64 years.......................................... 62% 62% 58% 0%
[203M] [1M] [3.3K] 0
Age >=65 years.............................................. 16% 14% 8% 0%
[53M] [234K] [500] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level......................................... 13% 17% 24% 0%
[42M] [281K] [1.3K] 0
[[Page 7987]]
Below 2x Poverty Level...................................... 30% 39% 45% 0%
[100M] [637K] [2.6K] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................... 12% 16% 28% 0%
[38M] [262K] [1.6K] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..................................... 5% 7% 11% 0%
[17M] [109K] [600] 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 ACS 5-year block group
averages. Total population count is based on 2020 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR
was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were
unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
K = Thousands, M = Millions.
3. CMAS NESHAP Community Demographics
As described in section II.E of this preamble and the document
titled Risk Assessment for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source
(CMAS) Source Categories in Support of the 2025 Technology Review for
the Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking, we assessed the community risks as part of a discretionary
risk assessment for 278 CMAS facilities.\61\ The community risks
include HAP emissions from all stationary point sources for which we
have emissions data within 10 km of the CMAS facilities identified in
section II.C.1 of this preamble. The following discussion of the
community risk analysis is focused on post-control risks. This
community demographic analysis characterizes the remaining risks
communities face after implementation of the controls required in this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See footnote 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The community demographic analysis is an assessment of individual
demographic groups in the total population living within 10 km (~6.2
miles) of the CMAS facilities. The community risk assessment and
demographics were only conducted at the 10 km radius because, based on
emissions from the CMAS categories, this distance includes 100 percent
of the population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million. The full results of the community demographic analysis are in
the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) Facilities:
Community-Based Assessment which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
The community demographic analysis post-control results are shown
in table 15 of this preamble. The following discussion of the community
demographic analysis is focused on the populations living within 10 km
of the CMAS facilities with estimated community post-control cancer
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million, and greater than 100-in-1 million. The risk analysis
indicated that all emissions from all facilities within 10 km of the
CMAS facilities, after the reductions imposed by the proposed rule,
expose a total of about 8 million people living around 242 facilities
to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, 65,000 people
living around 66 facilities to a cancer risk greater than or equal to
50-in-1 million, and about 1,900 people living around nine facilities
to a cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million.
When the CMAS community populations are compared to the CMAS
categories populations in the post-control scenarios, we see 6.6
million additional people with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million, 61,000 additional people with cancer risks greater than
or equal to 50-in-1 million, and 1,900 additional people with cancer
risks greater than 100-in-1 million.
The demographic distribution of the community population with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is similar to the
category population and the whole-facility population with cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million in the post-control scenario.
Therefore, the community population with post-control cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million has disproportionately high
representation from Blacks, Hispanics and Latinos, people living below
the poverty level, people living below two times the poverty level,
those over 25 without a high school diploma, and those living in
linguistic isolation.
The population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 50-in-1
million in the community analysis has a different demographic
distribution than the source category population with cancer risks
greater than or equal to 50-in-1 million in the post-control scenario.
The percent of the population that is Black with risks greater than or
equal to 50-in-1 million is lower for the community post-control
analysis (19 percent) versus the category and whole-facility post-
control analyses (26 percent). For the community post-control
assessment, the percentage of the population with cancer risks greater
than or equal to 50-in-1 million that is below the poverty level (13
percent) and below two times the poverty level (27 percent) is equal to
or below their corresponding national averages (13 percent and 30
percent, respectively).
[[Page 7988]]
The percentage of the population that is over 25 years old without a
high school diploma (14 percent) is above the national average (12
percent) for community post-control population.
Based on results from the community emissions analysis, there are
about 1,900 people with post-control cancer risks greater than 100-in-1
million. The CMAS categories emissions analysis indicated that there
are no people with post-control cancer risks greater than 100-in-1
million. The increased cancer risk for most of these 1,900 people is
driven largely by emissions of chromium VI from non-CMAS facilities
within 10 km of CMAS facilities.
The percent of the population in the community analysis with post-
control cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million that is Black (15
percent) and Hispanic or Latino (21 percent) are above their
corresponding national averages (12 percent and 19 percent,
respectively). The percent of the population in the community analysis
with a post control cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million that is
below the poverty level (14 percent) and below two times the poverty
level (36 percent) are above their corresponding national averages (13
percent and 30 percent, respectively). The percent of the population in
the community analysis with a post control cancer risk greater than
100-in-1 million that is over 25 years old without a high school
diploma (21 percent) is above the national average (12 percent).
Table 15--Community: Community Post-Control Demographics for CMAS Facilities by Risk Level for Populations
Living Within 10 km of Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole-facility post-control cancer
risk for populations within 10 km of
Nationwide CMAS facilities
Demographic group average for --------------------------------------
reference >=1-in-1 >=50-in-1 >100-in-1
million million million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................ 330M 8M 65K 2K
Number of Facilities........................................ ........... 242 66 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White....................................................... 60% 40% 49% 64%
[196M] [3.2M] [32K] [1.2K]
Black....................................................... 12% 22% 19% 15%
[40M] [1.8M] [12K] [300]
American Indian and Alaskan Native.......................... 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1%
[2.1M] [16K] [200] [<100]
Hispanic or Latino (white and nonwhite)..................... 19% 30% 29% 21%
[63M] [2.4M] [19K] [400]
Other and Multiracial....................................... 9% 8% 4% 1%
[29M] [654K] [2.5K] [<100]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age By Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0 to 17 years........................................... 22% 23% 25% 25%
[74M] [1.9M] [16K] [500]
Age 18 to 64 years.......................................... 62% 63% 64% 62%
[203M] [5M] [42K] [1.2K]
Age >= 65 years............................................. 16% 14% 11% 13%
[53M] [1.1M] [7.4K] [300]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level......................................... 13% 18% 13% 14%
[42M] [1.4M] [8.6K] [300]
Below 2x Poverty Level...................................... 30% 38% 27% 36%
[100M] [3.1M] [18K] [700]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................... 12% 18% 14% 21%
[38M] [1.4M] [9.1K] [400]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent [Number of People]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..................................... 5% 8% 5% 3%
[17M] [598K] [3.3K] [<100]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 ACS 5-year block group
averages. Total population count is based on 2020 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR
was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were
unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
K = Thousands, M = Millions.
[[Page 7989]]
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action proposes to reduce HAP emissions including those
emissions from EtO. In addition, the EPA's policy on Children's Health
\62\ also applies to this action. Accordingly, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of EtO emissions and exposures
on children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Children's Health Policy available at: https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-policy-and-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because EtO is mutagenic (i.e., it can act directly on
deoxyribonucleic acid and cause chromosome damage), children are
expected to be more susceptible to its harmful effects. To take this
into account, as part of the risk assessment performed in supported of
this rulemaking, the EPA followed its guidelines \63\ and applied age-
dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) to the inhalation unit risk
estimate for childhood exposures (from birth up to 16 years of age).
With the ADAF applied to account for greater susceptibility of
children, the adjusted EtO inhalation unit risk estimate is 5 x
10-3 per [micro]g/m\3\. It should be noted that because EtO
is mutagenic, the associated emission reductions proposed in this
preamble will be particularly beneficial to children. The results of
the risk assessment are contained in section II.E of this preamble and
further documented in the risk report Risk Assessment for the Chemical
Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) Source Category in Support of the 2025
Technology Review for the Proposed Rule which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. EPA. 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing
Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-03/003F. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201309/documents/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments,
economic impact analysis, and other analyses including our assumptions
and estimates discussed in sections IV.A through IV.C of this preamble.
We are specifically interested in receiving any information and data
regarding developments, limitations, or related general considerations
in practices, processes, and control technologies that reduce HAP
emissions. We solicit comment on the effectiveness of these proposed
requirements on reducing ethylene oxide emissions, any capital and
annual costs that we did not account for, the time that is needed to
come into compliance with the proposed requirements, or any other
potential barriers to or impacts of imposing these requirements. We
request comment on additional information on costs, emissions, product
recovery, and potential broader impacts to markets including impacts
small businesses and entities. We request comment on how to address the
non-monetized costs and benefits of the proposed rule. We request
estimates of any potential loss of production while bringing facilities
into compliance and forgone returns due to displaced investment.
We are requesting comments and data on risks and impacts (both
direct and indirect) of these proposed requirements on specific
critical industries such as production of active pharmaceutical
ingredients. We are interested in comments and data around the extent
of the costs of compliance with the proposed rule to manufacturers of
pharmaceuticals or other critical medical products, including any
potential impacts to the public health industrial base, drug shortages,
or other supply chain issues. We are also interested in proposals for
alternative mitigation strategies or technologies.
We request comment on data, methods, and approaches to monetize
non-fatal cancer, non-cancer health effects, and other benefits of
reducing exposure to ethylene oxide and other table 1 HAP.
In addition, we are requesting comment and data on if more frequent
heat exchange system monitoring periods, namely continued monthly
monitoring and/or weekly monitoring, are appropriate for CMAS (see
section IV.A.2 of this preamble). As mentioned in section IV.C.3 of
this preamble, we also request comment and data on whether the removal
of the TRE concept is feasible for CMAS facilities. With respect to
design evaluations and engineering assessments, we are soliciting
comment and data on whether they are appropriate for demonstrating
compliance for certain APCDs. Also, we are soliciting comment on
whether an alternative compliance timeline for the EtO requirements, as
discussed in section IV.E.1 of this preamble is appropriate.
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 Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the OMB for Executive
Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to
the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA
conducted an economic impact analysis for this proposal in a document
titled Economic Impact Analysis, which is available in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2323.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rulemaking, and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing amendments to the CMAS NESHAP that revise
provisions pertaining to emissions from PRDs, pressure vessels, heat
exchange systems, and equipment leaks. The EPA is also proposing
requirements pertaining to EtO emissions from process vents, storage
vessels, heat exchange systems, equipment leaks, and wastewater. In
addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to the NESHAP for CMAS that
revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM, add
requirements for electronic reporting of periodic reports and
performance test results, fenceline monitoring, and make other minor
clarifications and corrections. This information will be collected to
ensure compliance with the CMAS NESHAP.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of CMAS
facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV).
Estimated number of respondents: 280.
Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
Total estimated burden: Average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden is 25,300 hours (per year) to comply with the proposed
amendments in the CMAS NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: Average annual cost is $25,500,000 (per year)
which includes $23,000,000 annualized capital and operations and
maintenance costs,
[[Page 7990]]
to comply with the proposed amendments in the CMAS 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.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rulemaking. The EPA will respond to any ICR-
related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using
the interface at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB
must receive comments no later than February 21, 2025.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that the proposed rule in this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this
action are small businesses within the CMAS categories. The Agency has
determined that the 58 small entities affected by this action may
experience an average impact of total annual costs being 0.32 percent
of their annual revenues, not including product recovery, or 0.29
percent on average when product recovery from compliance is included.
Five of these 58 small entities are estimated to experience total
annual costs above one percent of annual revenues when not including
product recovery (three small entities when product recovery is
included), and one small entity had estimated annual costs exceeding
three percent of annual revenues regardless of whether product recovery
is included. The percentage of impacted small entities estimated to
experience total annual costs greater than one or three percent of
their annual revenues is small and therefore this action will not have
significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Details
of the analysis for the proposed rule are presented in the document
titled Economic Impact Analysis, which is available in the docket for
this action.
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 costs involved
in this action are estimated not to exceed $183 million in 2023$ ($100
million in 1995$ adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit price
deflator) or more in any one year.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Tribal
Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
Tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. We have identified two
facilities located on Tribal lands that will potentially be impacted by
this rulemaking, one of which emits EtO. Consistent with the EPA Policy
on Coordination and Consultation with Indian Tribes, the EPA will
provide tribal officials the opportunity to provide meaningful and
timely input early in the development of this action through multiple
outreach activities such as Tribal partnership calls, webinars, and
offers for government-to-government consultation with potentially
impacted Tribes and other Tribes as requested.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, though the EPA believes the safety
risks addressed by this action do present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's assessments of potential impacts to human
health are contained in section II.E of this preamble and in greater
detail in the document titled Risk Assessment for the Chemical
Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) Source Categories in Support of the
2025 Technology Review for the Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking. In addition, the EPA's Policy on Children's
Health applies to this action. Information on how the Policy was
applied is available in section V.G of this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The overall economic impact of this
proposed rule should be minimal for CMAS and their parent companies
(which are engaged in the energy sector).
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This proposed action involves technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA conducted searches for the CMAS NESHAP through the Enhanced
National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute. We also conducted a review of voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 5D, 21, and 29 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title
or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method,
the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rulemaking. This review requires
significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA
Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for particular VCS.
We did not identify any applicable voluntary consensus standards
for EPA Methods 5D and 21. However, the EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference VCS ASTM D6784-24, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary
[[Page 7991]]
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 29 (referenced in the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(iii))
with the following caveats. This ASTM procedure has been approved by
the EPA as an alternative to EPA Method 29 only when the target
compound is mercury; and applies to concentrations approximately 0.5 to
100 [micro]g/m\3\. This test method was developed initially for the
measurement of mercury in coal-fired power plants; however, it has also
been extensively used on other stationary combustion sources including
sources having a flue gas composition with high levels of hydrochloric
acid and low levels of sulfur dioxide. The test method includes
equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from effluent ducts and
stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory analysis, and
procedures for calculating results of elemental, oxidized, particle-
bound, and total mercury emissions. ASTM D6784-24 is available at ASTM
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See
https://www.astm.org/. The standard is available to everyone at a cost
determined by the ASTM ($90). The ASTM also offers memberships or
subscriptions that allow unlimited access to their methods. The cost of
obtaining these methods is not a significant financial burden, making
the methods reasonably available to stakeholders.
While the EPA identified 7 other VCS as being potentially
applicable, the Agency decided not to use them because these methods
are impractical as alternatives because of the lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy
considerations. The EPA documented the search and review results in the
document titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Technology
Review of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking. Additional information for the VCS search
and determinations can be found in this document. The EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with EJ concerns. For this rulemaking, we
conducted a proximity demographic analysis as well as baseline and
post-control demographic risk analyses for the source category and
whole facility. The analysis identified that 33.7 million people live
within 10 km of the 247 CMAS facilities analyzed. The percent of the
population living within 10 km of the CMAS facilities is above the
corresponding national average for the following demographic groups:
Black, Hispanic or Latino, Other/Multiracial, people living below the
poverty level, people living below two times the poverty level, people
over the age of 25 without a high school diploma, and linguistic
isolation. More details on this analysis are provided in section V.F.1
of this preamble.
For existing sources, the EPA believes that this action is likely
to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on communities
with EJ concerns. Groups experiencing baseline disparities are expected
to see reduced exposures due to the proposed level of control for those
processes emitting EtO and proposed management practices to control
fugitive emissions from sources of HAP. In addition, this action
proposes fenceline monitoring for EtO to ensure proper function of
those management practices. If the proposed changes are implemented, we
expect no people would be exposed to cancer risk levels greater than
100-in-1 million due to emissions from the CMAS categories. However,
for individuals exposed to cancer risk less than 100-in-1 million,
disparities remain in the proportion of different groups facing
elevated risk. The controls proposed for this action do not reduce the
risk of noncancer health impacts and thus the disparities remain the
same. For more information on the controls proposed in this action,
please refer to sections IV.A through IV.D of this preamble.
For new sources, the EPA believes that it is not practicable to
assess whether this action is likely to result in new disproportionate
and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns, because it is not
possible to know the location of any future new sources.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in section V.F of this preamble.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-00685 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P