[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40103-40118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133, FRL-9966-26-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS79
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 8, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
finalized amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
(APR). Subsequently, the EPA received three petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. The EPA is reconsidering and
requesting public comment on issues related to the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards for continuous process vents (CPVs)
at existing affected sources. The EPA is proposing to revise the MACT
standard for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources based on
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions test data for back-end CPVs at
existing sources for this source category submitted by petitioners. The
EPA is also soliciting comments regarding the need to revise the
standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources, and to extend the
compliance date for the proposed revised emission limit for back-end
CPVs at existing sources. Additionally, the EPA is proposing
requirements for storage vessels at new and existing sources during
periods when an emission control system used to control vents on fixed
roof tanks is undergoing planned routine maintenance. The EPA is
seeking comments only on the four issues specifically addressed in this
notice: proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing
sources, whether the EPA should modify the front-end CPV MACT standards
for existing sources, whether the EPA should extend the compliance date
for the proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing
sources, and the proposed work practice standards for storage vessels
during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems. In this
rulemaking, the EPA is not reopening or requesting comment on any other
aspects of the 2014 final amendments to the NESHAP for the Manufacture
of APR, including other issues raised in petitions for reconsideration
of the 2014 rule. The EPA estimates this proposal, if
[[Page 40104]]
finalized as proposed, would reduce compliance costs to this industry
by $2.1 million per year, compared to a revised cost estimate of the
MACT standard as amended in 2014.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by September 7,
2017, then we will hold a public hearing on September 25, 2017 at EPA
Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is
requested, then we will provide details about the public hearing on our
Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. The EPA
does not intend to publish another notice in the Federal Register
announcing any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please
contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at
[email protected] to request a public hearing, to register to speak
at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing
will be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the
public hearing will be September 21, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from http://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; fax number: (919) 541-0246;
email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria
Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, Mail Code
2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564-7027; fax number: (202) 564-0050; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room
3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0133. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and will be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0133. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a
copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as
CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 2.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, 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 http://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 electronic
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
avoid the use of 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. Multiple acronyms and terms
are used 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:
APR Amino/phenolic resin
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPV Continuous process vent
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
ICR Information collection request
lb Pound
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
[[Page 40105]]
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRD Pressure relief device
ppmv Parts per million by volume
RTO Regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR Residual risk and technology review
UFC Urea formaldehyde concentrate
UPL Upper predictive limit
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration
action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed reconsideration action?
B. What are the issues raised by petitioners about the standards
for CPVs at existing affected sources?
III. Proposed Emissions Standards for Back-End CPVs at Existing
Sources
A. What data were collected for back-end CPVs on resin spray
dryers?
B. What analyses were conducted for back-end CPVs?
C. Should the EPA provide facilities more time to comply with
the proposed revised back-end CPV standards?
IV. What other changes or issues does this action address?
A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate standard for front-end
CPVs at existing sources?
B. Proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new
and existing sources during planned routine maintenance of emission
control systems
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and
7607(d)(7)(B)).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with
this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin
manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in
manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other
plastic and resin types.
To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine
the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400 of subpart OOO. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of the
NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this
action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0133). 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/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of this
proposal at this same Web site. Other key technical documents related
to this proposal will be available in the docket when the Federal
Register version of the proposal is posted to the docket. Only the
version as published in the Federal Register will represent the
official EPA proposal.
II. Background
A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed reconsideration action?
On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65
FR 3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR
Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. That action
also amended the NESHAP for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers
Production source category and the Polycarbonate Production source
category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898). The 2014 final
rule established MACT standards for the first time for CPVs at existing
affected sources in the APR Production source category. The 2014 final
rule also removed exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction; clarified provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and
lines; added monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices
(PRDs); and added requirements for electronic reporting of performance
test results.
The October 2014 amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO,
promulgated emissions limits for previously unregulated HAP emissions
from CPVs at existing affected sources, without distinguishing between
back-end and front-end CPVs. The standard of 0.95 kilograms of organic
HAP per megagram (1.9 pounds (lb) of total organic HAP per ton) of
resin produced is codified at 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3) and currently
applies to existing affected source back-end and front-end CPVs.
Following promulgation of the October 8, 2014, final rule, the EPA
received three petitions for reconsideration pursuant to section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The petitions were submitted by the Sierra
Club, Tembec BTLSR (``Tembec''), and Georgia-Pacific LLC (``Georgia-
Pacific''). The petitions are available for review in the rulemaking
docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0077, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0133-0076, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0072, respectively). On
March 27, 2015, the EPA issued letters to the petitioners granting
reconsideration of the final rule to address at least the following
petitioners' claims: that the public was not afforded a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis, supporting data and
resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and that the
requirements associated with emissions from PRDs should be
reconsidered.\1\
[[Page 40106]]
These letters are also available in the rulemaking docket (see Docket
Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0075, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0073,
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0074, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A petitioner requested another change in the rule language
regarding planned routine maintenance of emission control systems
used to reduce HAP emissions from storage vessels. Although this
issue was not addressed in the March 2015 letters granting
reconsideration, the EPA has reconsidered the storage vessel
requirements and is addressing these requirements in this proposal.
See section IV of this preamble for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is now proposing revised emissions standards for back-
end CPVs at existing affected sources and is proposing alternative work
practice standards for storage vessels during periods of planned
routine maintenance of emission control systems on fixed roof tanks at
new and existing affected APR production sources. The EPA is requesting
public comments on these proposed standards. The EPA is also asking for
comments on whether it is necessary to establish a new compliance date
for the proposed revised back-end CPV limits at existing sources (if
they are promulgated), and on whether revisions are needed to the
existing source CPV limits as they apply to front-end CPVs. At this
time, the EPA is not proposing any actions pertaining to its grant of
reconsideration on the PRD issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration. The EPA intends to address those issues separately in
a future action and is not requesting or accepting comment on issues
related to PRDs.
B. What are the issues raised by petitioners about the standards for
CPVs at existing affected sources?
1. Opportunity To Comment on Final Production-Based Standards for CPVs
at Existing Affected Sources
During the review of the APR NESHAP, the EPA determined that there
were no applicable MACT standards for CPVs located at existing affected
sources, and, therefore, in the January 9, 2014 (79 FR 1676), RTR
proposal for the category, the EPA proposed first-time MACT standards,
based on the MACT floor, for those CPVs as follows:
Reduce organic HAP by 85 percent or more; or
Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 20 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) when using a combustion control device; or
Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 50 ppmv when
using a non-combustion control device.
During the comment period on the proposal, commenters provided the
EPA with information showing that, rather than the two existing
affected sources in the category with CPVs (specifically, CPVs on resin
spray dryers) that the EPA had identified at proposal, there are four
existing affected sources with a total of six CPVs (all on resin spray
dryers). In addition, commenters stated that the EPA should calculate
uncontrolled production-based emission rates based on 5 years of
production, taking variability in emissions between resin types into
account. Commenters provided the EPA with HAP emissions data and resin
production data for the previous 5 years during the comment period.
The EPA considered the additional data submitted during the comment
period in calculating the MACT floor, and determined that it was
appropriate to finalize a production-based limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per
ton of resin produced for CPVs at existing affected sources (see 40 CFR
63.1405(a)(3)). The EPA discussed the determination of the MACT floor
in a memorandum available in the rulemaking docket (Docket Document ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0053). The final rule was promulgated on
October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60898).
Petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific each own resin spray dryers
(back-end CPVs) regulated by the NESHAP for existing affected sources.
The back-end CPVs are currently subject to the finalized limit of 1.9
lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. Tembec's and Georgia-Pacific's
petitions claim they did not have an opportunity to comment on the MACT
floor analysis and emissions standard in the final rule. While they
stated in the petitions that they believe a production-based limit is
appropriate, they claimed they did not get an opportunity to comment on
how the EPA would use the data they provided in analyses conducted to
determine the MACT floor level of control.
2. MACT Floor Determination for Back-End CPVs at Existing Affected
Sources
The Tembec and Georgia-Pacific petitions stated that the
production-based emissions limit in the 2014 final rule of 1.9 lb of
HAP per ton of resin produced was not achievable for back-end CPVs, and
they expressed concern over the data and calculation methodology used
to set the HAP emissions standard for CPVs at existing affected
sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that even though its back-end CPVs
are identified as the best-performing units, these units do not meet
the 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced standard for existing
source CPVs.
Tembec and Georgia-Pacific further stated that the emissions data
the EPA used to represent Tembec's back-end CPVs were incomplete.
According to Tembec and Georgia-Pacific, Tembec's back-end CPV HAP
emissions data used in the final rule MACT floor analysis do not
account for all HAP emitted, including methanol and formaldehyde.
Therefore, petitioners stated that the EPA underestimated the total HAP
emissions from these back-end CPVs, resulting in an unreasonably
stringent production-based total HAP emissions standard for existing
affected sources.
Georgia-Pacific stated in its petition that the EPA made three
errors in calculating the production-based HAP limits for CPVs at
existing affected sources. First, the petitioner claimed that the
promulgated emissions standard does not adequately account for
variability in emissions from back-end CPVs. The commenter noted that
the EPA calculated the emission rate for each CPV by dividing the 5-
year total emissions by the 5-year total amount of resin produced by
the corresponding resin unit. The petitioner stated that to account for
short-term variability, the EPA should have based the standard on the
maximum 1-year production-based HAP emissions rate for each CPV.
Georgia-Pacific also stated that another approach the EPA could have
used to account for variability in the data when calculating the
production-based HAP emissions limit is the application of a 99-percent
upper prediction limit (UPL). Second, Georgia-Pacific disagreed with
the EPA's interpretation of ``average'' as the median rather than the
arithmetic mean of the production-based HAP emissions, although it
acknowledged the EPA's long-standing interpretation that ``average''
could mean arithmetic mean, median, or mode. The petitioner stated that
using the arithmetic mean would better reflect the performance of
Georgia-Pacific's back-end CPVs, whereas the median produced an
emissions limit that is not representative of two of the five best-
performing back-end CPVs (with the noted two being Georgia-Pacific
CPVs). Third, Georgia-Pacific stated that the EPA's emissions
calculations do not account for a change in particulate control
technology for one of Tembec's back-end CPVs that occurred prior to the
2014 final rule. Georgia-Pacific asserted that HAP emissions from this
CPV are now higher with the change in particulate control technology,
and the EPA should not have used data from a period with the previous
control technology in place when determining production-based HAP
emissions from the five best-performing CPVs at existing affected
sources.
Georgia-Pacific also suggested in its petition for reconsideration
that the EPA should explore subcategorizing the existing source CPVs
between those at Tembec and those at Georgia-Pacific to account for
fundamental differences in
[[Page 40107]]
equipment and processes, including dryer size and/or type of resin
produced. Georgia-Pacific's resin spray dryers are substantially larger
than Tembec's resin spray dryers. Also, Tembec produces urea-
formaldehyde resins, whereas Georgia-Pacific produces phenolic resins.
Tembec stated in its petition that the EPA did not consider
information Tembec submitted to the EPA in the development of the MACT
standard for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Specifically, Tembec
stated that 2006 engineering test data for one of its CPVs were
submitted to the EPA and could have been used to better estimate the
HAP emissions from its three CPVs. Tembec also stated that it supports
the Georgia-Pacific petition.
In a comment letter from Georgia-Pacific dated March 10, 2014
(Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0046), on the January 9,
2014, proposal, Georgia Pacific identified an additional CPV at its
Crossett, Arkansas, facility. This newly identified CPV is not on the
resin spray dryers. Whereas the resin spray dryers are on the back-end
of the resin manufacturing process, this additional CPV is associated
with a reactor used to produce urea-formaldehyde concentrate (UFC),
which is located in the front-end of the resin manufacturing process,
ahead of the resin spray dryers. Due to a lack of reliable emissions
data for this CPV at the time of the 2014 final rule, the EPA did not
include emissions from this CPV when it set the MACT floor for CPVs.
The Sierra Club raised concerns in its petition for reconsideration
regarding the exclusion of HAP emissions data from that front-end CPV,
stating that the EPA did not adequately explain why the UFC CPV HAP
emissions data were not included in the analysis to calculate the MACT
floor for CPVs and asserting that the EPA must include all existing
sources in the MACT floor analysis. Sierra Club argued that if the EPA
had included Georgia-Pacific's UFC front-end CPV, the HAP emissions
standard for CPVs would have been more stringent.
Sierra Club asserted in its petition that all the CPVs are in the
same source category and that the EPA cannot subcategorize based on the
controls that are in place. Sierra Club further noted that although the
EPA stated that the HAP emissions data from this front-end CPV were not
reliable, such a statement is insufficient to explain ignoring the HAP
emissions from this CPV when setting the MACT standard for CPVs.
Lastly, Sierra Club stated that excluding the UFC front-end CPV in the
MACT floor analysis because its HAP emissions are not responsible for
driving risks is not a relevant reason for such an exclusion.
Following the EPA's issuance of the March 27, 2015, letters
granting reconsideration on petitioners' issues pertaining to CPVs,
petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific conducted HAP emissions testing
on the back-end CPVs located on their resin dryers at their four
existing affected sources. The data from that testing are discussed in
section III.A of this preamble.
III. Proposed Emissions Standards for Back-End CPVs at Existing Sources
A. What data were collected for back-end CPVs on resin spray dryers?
Georgia-Pacific and Tembec conducted HAP emissions testing in April
2015 and June 2015 on all six back-end CPVs located on their resin
spray dryers, and they submitted the results of that testing to the
EPA. Georgia-Pacific separately tested emissions during production of
three types of resins at its Conway, North Carolina, facility; two
types of resins at the Taylorsville, Mississippi, facility; and one
type of resin at the Crossett, Arkansas, facility. Tembec tested
emissions from one spray dryer CPV while producing one type of resin
and tested emissions during production of two types of resins from the
other two resin spray dryer CPVs. The companies followed a testing
protocol approved in advance by the EPA, and both companies conducted
six 1-hour runs of the back-end CPVs on each resin spray dryer, where
possible, yielding a total of 64 runs. The test data indicate that the
major HAP present were methanol and formaldehyde. Complete information
on the spray dryer back-end CPV exhaust emission testing, including
process and operation information, testing protocol and methodology,
quality assurance/quality control, and detailed test results are
available in the rulemaking docket.
B. What analyses were conducted for back-end CPVs?
1. MACT Floor Analysis for Back-End CPVs
We performed a MACT floor analysis for back-end CPVs using the 2015
test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec. In determining the
MACT floor for existing sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) specifies that
the emissions limits cannot be less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
Since we have identified six existing source dryers in the APR source
category, we determined the MACT floor-level of control based on the
best-performing five sources. The MACT floor analysis involved
determining the UPL emission rate for each dryer CPV, based on the
emissions test results for the resin type generating the highest HAP
emissions (where multiple resin types were tested). This UPL value
takes into account production variability and estimates the upper bound
of future values, based on present or past samples. The resulting UPL
emission rate values for the six dryers were ranked, and the five
lowest values were averaged to produce the MACT floor value.
The EPA considered the petitioner's claim that the arithmetic
average rather than the median value should be used in determining the
MACT floor. Given the distribution of the data from these sources, the
EPA interprets the arithmetic mean to be the better interpretation of
``average'' for this set of data. If the distribution of the emission
rates from each of the dryers had extreme variation or extreme
skewness, then the median might be a better indicator of the central
tendency or average of the data set. However, given that the data set
consists of only five values (i.e., the UPL of the performance testing
results for each of the five best-performing dryers \2\) and given that
there is only a slight positive skew of this dataset, there is not
enough skewness or variation in this dataset to conclude the median
would be a better description of the average over the arithmetic mean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Table 3 of the memorandum titled ``Proposed Revised MACT
Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process
Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins
Production Source Category'' in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also considered how to best account for variability in
emissions rates in the MACT floor determination. As each of these
sources may produce multiple types (or recipes) of APR (without
restriction and without needing any physical modification to the
sources), to establish a standard that represents the emissions limit
achieved in practice by the best-performing sources, our calculations
of the MACT floor are based on the resin resulting in the highest HAP
emissions at each of the best-performing sources and the calculated UPL
emission rate for production of that highest-HAP emission generating
resin at each dryer. In determining the MACT floor for existing
sources, the EPA may exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of
the relevant factors and available data,
[[Page 40108]]
to determine the level of performance that has been achieved by the
average of the best-performing sources (in this case, five sources)
under variable conditions. The Court has recognized that the EPA may
consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions reduction
achieved by the best-performing sources and in setting MACT floors,
holding the EPA may consider emission variability in estimating
performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set the floor
at a level that best-performing sources can expect to meet ``every day
and under all operating conditions.'' \3\ As a result of its analysis,
the EPA has determined that an appropriate MACT floor for back-end CPVs
s 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. See the memorandum titled
``Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-
End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and
Phenolic Resins Production Source Category'' for more details on this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232,
(D.C. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA explored Georgia-Pacific's request in its petition
regarding subcategorizing the dryer standards based on dryer size and/
or type of resin produced. However, we found no compelling dryer size
threshold nor resin type attribution that would provide a suitable
rationale for subcategorization of a MACT floor for a back-end CPV
standard.
2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End CPVs
When establishing an emission standard pursuant to section 112(d)
of the CAA, the EPA also determines whether to control emissions to a
more stringent level ``beyond-the-floor,'' after considering the costs,
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements of such more stringent control. As part of the beyond-the-
floor analysis for existing source back-end CPVs, control options that
are more stringent than the MACT floor were considered. We identified
one such option for back-end CPVs at existing sources, a 98-percent
emissions reduction requirement. For this option, we assumed that
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) would need to be used to achieve
this control level at all existing APR sources with back-end CPVs.
While we project that two facilities would already need to install RTOs
on their back-end CPVs to meet the proposed revised MACT floor
emissions limit, for this beyond-the-floor analysis, we evaluated the
potential additional installation of RTOs at the other two facilities--
one facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPV on one
resin spray dryer and the other facility would install an RTO to
control the back-end CPVs on three resin spray dryers.
Table 1 presents the impacts for the MACT floor and the beyond-the-
floor options evaluated. Since we are not aware that any of the four
facilities have installed controls to comply with the CPV requirements
in the 2014 final rule, and since we are aware that at least three of
the facilities have obtained an additional year to comply from their
permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i), we believe it is
appropriate to compare the impacts of the MACT floor and the beyond-
the-floor option identified to the 2000 rule compliance baseline. In
addition, as explained previously, because the data used to set the
production-based HAP emissions limit in the 2014 final rule did not
account for all HAP, the cost and emissions impacts determined at the
time the EPA issued the 2014 final rule would not be an appropriate
basis of comparison. However, we note that using the more complete HAP
emissions data now available, the cost and emissions impacts of the
2014 final rule for back-end CPVs would be approximately the same as
the cost and emissions impacts of the beyond-the-floor option for back-
end CPVs presented in Table 1 because we now project that all four
facilities would need to install RTOs to comply with the 2014 final
rule for back-end CPVs. More information on how the capital and
annualized costs and costs per ton were calculated is available in the
memorandum titled ``National Impacts Associated with Proposed Existing
Source Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic
Resins Production Source Category,'' available in the rulemaking
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Beyond-the-floor would be essentially the same level of
control as the 2014 final rule, with revised estimates of the costs
and HAP emissions reduction based on the 2015 test data of back-end
CPVs at existing sources.
Table 1--Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Cost Impacts of Control Options for Back-End CPVs at Existing APR Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP emissions
reduction Cost Incremental cost
Regulatory options compared to 2000 Capital cost Annualized cost effectiveness ($/ effectiveness ($/
rule (tons per (million $) ($/yr) ton HAP removed) ton HAP removed)
year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor............................................... 207 4.8 2.1 10,400 .................
Beyond-the-floor \4\..................................... 271 9.6 4.2 15,500 33,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially, the beyond-the-floor option reflects a doubling of
capital and annualized costs compared to the MACT floor option, while
obtaining an additional HAP reduction of only 31-percent beyond the
MACT floor option. Based on this analysis, we do not consider the
beyond-the-floor option to be cost effective. Therefore, we are not
proposing any beyond-the-floor standards. Instead, we are proposing to
establish production-based HAP emission limits for back-end CPVs at
existing APR production sources, at the level we have now determined is
the correct MACT floor (i.e., 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced).
3. Proposed Amendments to Compliance Demonstration Procedures
Facilities in the APR Production source category produce a wide
variety of resin recipes as needed to meet the specifications of
various products in which these resins are used. As a result, the
characteristics of the resins passing through the dryers where the
back-end CPVs are located can vary at a facility. In order to ensure
that APR sources monitor operating parameters at a level that ensures
continuous compliance with the proposed MACT standards for back-end
CPVs under any and all operating conditions, we are also proposing to
amend 40 CFR 63.1413 to require sources to conduct the performance
testing using the resin
[[Page 40109]]
recipes anticipated to have the highest HAP content in the liquid
resin.
4. Consideration of Risk Review
In the risk assessment for the 2014 final rule, we determined that
the APR MACT standards promulgated in January 2000 provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health (including the then-
uncontrolled emissions from CPVs at existing sources). See Residual
Risk Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source
Category, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0065. Although
the data set used to establish the MACT production-based emission
limits for CPVs at existing sources in the 2014 final rule did not
include data on all HAP, the risk assessment modeling input files for
the 2014 final rule show that emissions of all HAP, including methanol
and formaldehyde, from the CPVs at the existing sources were accounted
for, except for the non-reactor front-end CPV at the INEOS Melamines
facility. At the INEOS Melamines facility, the 2014 risk modeling
estimates a maximum individual risk of 0.4-in-1 million attributable to
the APR source at the INEOS facility, with the risk driver identified
as formaldehyde, and the risk modeling input files include 0.375 tons
per year of formaldehyde emissions. The information collected from
INEOS regarding its non-reactor front-end CPV indicates annual
emissions of formaldehyde at less than 0.03 tons per year. Given the
low risk estimate for the facility, we consider this small increase in
emissions to be insignificant, and the estimated facility risk would be
about the same (less than 1-in-1 million). Thus, we would not
anticipate the inclusion of a revised emissions estimate for the INEOS
facility would change the 2014 risk assessment results for the facility
or the APR Production source category, and we have determined that
additional quantitative risk analyses are not necessary.
C. Should the EPA provide facilities more time to comply with the
proposed revised back-end CPV standards?
We are soliciting comments on whether existing facilities would
need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV
standards, if the revisions to those standards are promulgated. The
current compliance date in the 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017. The
APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity for existing
facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request an extension from their
permitting authorities for up to 1 additional year to comply, if
necessary, to install controls to meet a standard. We anticipate that
two existing facilities would need to install control devices to comply
with the proposed revised back-end CPV emissions standards. Industry
has indicated that at least 18 months would be needed to install
controls, once the proposed rule is finalized, and a 1-year extension
of the October 9, 2017, compliance date, if granted, would require
compliance in less than 18 months from any promulgation date of the
revised back-end CPV standards (given the date of this proposal). We
are soliciting comments on whether to maintain the current compliance
date, anticipating that case-by-case extension requests may be made, or
if the compliance date should be established for another date. If it is
appropriate to establish a different compliance date, we are soliciting
comments on an appropriate date, such as a date 18 months after
promulgation of the revised standards, the date 18 months beyond the
original October 9, 2017, compliance date, or some other date.
IV. What other changes or issues does this action address?
A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate standard for front-end CPVs at
existing sources?
In the APR Production source category, CPVs are found in both the
back-end and front-end of the resins production process. Back-end CPVs
are associated with APR production operations related to processing
liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but
are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying,
pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb
storage. Front-end CPVs are associated with the part of an APR process
unit related to producing liquid resins, including any product
recovery, stripping, and filtering operations. Front-end CPVs can be
further distinguished as being reactor CPVs or non-reactor CPVs. A
reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a reactor,
whereas a non-reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating
from a unit operation other than a reactor. Examples of non-reactor
front-end CPV unit operations include filter presses, surge control
vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, holding tanks, and
distillation systems.
The EPA has identified two APR Production existing sources that
have front-end CPVs. One is Georgia-Pacific's facility in Crossett,
Arkansas, and the other is an INEOS Melamines facility in Springfield,
Massachusetts. Georgia-Pacific has a front-end reactor CPV that handles
air streams originating from the reactor associated with the
manufacture of UFC. This front-end CPV is controlled with an RTO that
achieves a HAP control efficiency of 95 percent or more and also
controls HAP emissions from other processes at the facility. The EPA
became aware of this front-end CPV through comments on the 2014
proposed rulemaking, but had limited information about this front-end
CPV at the time of the final rule. INEOS Melamines has a front-end non-
reactor CPV that handles air streams from the formaldehyde recovery
process associated with their amino resins production process. This
front-end CPV is routed to a scrubber, which was installed primarily
for control of particulate matter emissions. The EPA was not aware of
this front-end CPV unit during the 2014 rulemaking, but learned of it
in 2015 from communications with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. We are not aware of any other front-end CPVs
at any of the other existing sources in the APR Production source
category.
Since the air emission streams from these two front-end CPVs have
different characteristics, such as different flow rates and HAP
concentrations, and are vents for dissimilar types of equipment and
would likely require different control approaches, we are soliciting
comments on, but not yet proposing, whether standards for these front-
end CPVs should be revised from the currently applicable CPV standard
of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced and subcategorized into two
types--reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs. Separate standards for
the two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor
and non-reactor vents have been regulated by the EPA for batch
processes for the APR Production source category--see 40 CFR 63.1406
Reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions and 40 CFR 63.1407 Non-reactor
Batch Process Vent Provisions. We are not proposing separate standards
for front-end CPVs on reactors and non-reactors at this time because we
are uncertain as to whether we have identified the only two front-end
CPVs in the source category or whether the data for these two CPVs
would be appropriate to revise the currently applicable CPV standards
and establish front-end CPV standards for the source category if there
are other front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. Therefore, we
are seeking comment on whether there are other reactor or non-reactor
front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. For
[[Page 40110]]
any such front-end CPVs, we are further seeking information regarding
current HAP emissions, emissions controls, and control costs. If there
are no other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected
sources or if no additional data are provided for any such CPVs, it is
possible that the EPA would consider, in lieu of leaving front-end CPVs
at existing sources subject to the currently applicable CPV standards,
adopting final revised standards that could apply to front-end CPVs at
existing sources, as discussed below.
Based on the analyses presented below, we could establish separate
existing APR Production source standards for front-end CPVs on reactors
and for front-end CPVs on non-reactors, based on the MACT floor. We are
soliciting comments on whether the EPA should maintain the 2014 final
rule CPV emissions standards that currently apply to front-end CPVs
(1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced), whether the EPA should
replace these standards for front-end CPVs with standards specific to
front-end CPVs as discussed in this section, or whether the EPA should
set different revised front-end CPV standards based on additional
information about additional front-end CPVs that the EPA has not yet
obtained.
1. Data Collected for Front-End CPVs
On November 30, 2015, the EPA requested process information and
emissions data for front-end CPVs at Georgia-Pacific's Crossett and
INEOS Melamines' resin production facilities via a CAA section 114
survey. Georgia-Pacific has another formaldehyde and resin
manufacturing facility located in Columbus, Ohio, for which Georgia-
Pacific also provided information in their survey submittal. Although
the Columbus facility is an area source not subject to the APR MACT
standards, Georgia-Pacific provided the data to help clarify emissions
that would be expected from the front-end CPV due to APR production at
the Georgia-Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas, where the front-end
CPV at this facility handles streams from both APR and non-APR
production sources, since the Columbus and Crossett resin manufacturing
operations are similar. The EPA received responses from Georgia-Pacific
on February 9, 2016, and responses from INEOS Melamines on January 11,
2016, with additional information on May 23, 2016. The CAA section 114
survey and the survey responses received from Georgia-Pacific and INEOS
Melamines can be found in the rulemaking docket.
2. MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Front-End CPVs
We performed separate MACT floor analyses for reactor and non-
reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section
114 survey data provided by Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines.
For front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one
major source facility with a front-end reactor CPV subject to the APR
NESHAP, which is a Georgia Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas.
Georgia-Pacific also submitted data for a facility in Columbus, Ohio,
which is a synthetic area source and is not subject to the APR NESHAP.
Consistent with the EPA's longstanding policy and with prior
rulemakings where the EPA has included data from synthetic area sources
in MACT floor calculations,\5\ data for the front-end CPVs at both the
synthetic area source and the major source were included in the MACT
floor calculations for reactor front-end CPVs. Based on our analysis of
the data provided by Georgia Pacific for these facilities, we have
determined that the MACT floor for front-end reactor CPVs at existing
sources would be 0.61 lb of HAP per hour.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 68 FR
2227, 2232 (January 16, 2003); NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay
Products Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing,
68 FR 26690, 26697 (May 16, 2003); NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers Production, 77 FR 22848, 22876 (April 17, 2012).
\6\ The EPA did not select a production-based format for the
MACT floor because front-end equipment may not produce finished
resin products and relating the output of front-end equipment to
tons of finished resin produced may be difficult for compliance
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of
one major source facility with a front-end non-reactor CPV subject to
the APR NESHAP, which is INEOS Melamines in Springfield, Massachusetts.
As there is only one front-end CPV in this subcategory, the emissions
level currently being achieved by this CPV represents the MACT floor
for the subcategory. Based on our analysis of the data provided by
INEOS Melamines for this front-end CPV, we have determined that the
MACT floor for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources would be
0.022 lb of HAP per hour.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis for reactor and non-
reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section
114 survey data. For front-end reactor CPVs, HAP emissions from the
CPVs at both facilities are controlled with RTOs, and we have not
identified any other technology that would perform better. Therefore,
there is no beyond-the-floor option to evaluate.
For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, the CPV at the
INEOS Melamines facility is currently controlled with a scrubber, and
we assumed carbon adsorption would be a technically feasible control
technology that would reduce HAP emissions. We estimated the total
annualized costs of adding carbon adsorption to be approximately $9,000
per year and the control would achieve an additional reduction of 0.04
tons of HAP per year, resulting in a cost of approximately $225,000 per
ton of HAP removed beyond the MACT floor level of control. Based on the
high costs and low additional emissions reduction possible with this
control, we have determined that this beyond-the-floor option is not
reasonable. More information on these MACT floor and beyond-the-floor
analyses are available in the memorandum titled ``MACT Floor and
Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Front-End Continuous Process Vents at
Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source
Category'' in the rulemaking docket.
B. Proposed Work Practice Standards for Storage Vessels at New and
Existing Sources During Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control
Systems
In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemption from emissions
standards for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction 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). This
decision stated that the EPA must have standards in place at all times,
even during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As a result,
the storage vessel provisions in the APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1404 apply
at all times. In their petition for reconsideration, Georgia-Pacific
requested that the EPA reconsider the applicability of the storage
vessel HAP emissions standards when the emission control system for the
vent on a fixed roof storage vessel is shut down for planned routine
maintenance.
In the 2014 final rule, we established storage vessel capacity and
vapor pressure applicability thresholds for storage vessels at new and
existing sources, consistent with the thresholds established for the
chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for
Synthetic Organic
[[Page 40111]]
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON). Georgia Pacific stated in its
petition for reconsideration of the 2014 final rule that to meet the
goal of being wholly consistent with the HON storage vessel standards,
the EPA also should include the HON storage vessel allowance for
routine maintenance of an emission control system in the rule. The HON
includes provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3) and (f)(3) that allow an
affected source to bypass the storage vessel emission control system
for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of
the emission control system. The emission control system could be an
emission control device, fuel gas system, or process. The petitioner
stated that these provisions would ensure consistency and are needed
because the effort to empty and degas a tank to perform this
maintenance could result in greater HAP emissions than would occur if a
limited allowance or exception were provided.
To determine whether separate MACT standards should be established
for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control
system for the vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or existing source,
we reviewed the title V permits for each facility subject to the APR
NESHAP. In this review, we searched for facilities that had storage
vessels subject to the emissions standards of the APR NESHAP and for
any permit requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of
a control device for a storage vessel. From the review, several
facilities were found to have storage vessels subject to the APR NESHAP
emission standards, and two facilities had permit conditions for
periods of time when the storage vessel control device was not
operating. One facility had requirements that emissions be routed to a
different control device, which normally operates at the facility for
other processes, during planned outages of the primary control device
for the storage vessel. At this facility, when both control devices are
not operating, there are requirements that the storage vessels not be
filled during these times, eliminating working loss emissions. The
other facility had requirements for one storage vessel that specify it
could not be filled when its emission control system was not operating.
The reviewed title V permits also indicate that some APR facilities are
co-located with storage vessels subject to the HON (or have storage
vessels that serve both APR and HON operations, but are subject to the
HON due to predominant use).
We also reviewed other chemical production NESHAP to determine
requirements that apply to similar storage vessels. From the review of
these NESHAP, we found that the HON and several other NESHAP,
including, but not limited to, those for Group I Polymers and Resins,
Group IV Polymers and Resins, Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities had provisions
that minimized HAP emissions during periods of planned routine
maintenance. Provisions minimized HAP emissions by limiting the
duration of the planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The
Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
NESHAP allow a facility to request an extension of up to an additional
120 hours per year on the condition that no material is added to the
tank during such requested extension period. Based on our review of
these permits and NESHAP, we have determined that a separate work
practice standard that allows owners/operators up to 240 hours per year
during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system,
provided that there are no working losses from the vessel, represents
the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank vents at new and
existing APR sources.
We evaluated the 2014 final rule's requirement that the storage
vessel work practice standard at new and existing APR sources apply at
all times (with no separate work practice standards for periods of
planned routine maintenance of the emission control system) as a
beyond-the-floor control option. To comply with this option (i.e., the
current rule's storage tank requirements), we anticipate that backup
controls would likely be installed to ensure compliance with the
storage vessel requirements during periods of planned routine
maintenance of the primary emission control system. We estimate that
there are one to 15 sources in the category that would need to control
one or more storage vessels during periods when the primary emission
control system is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We estimate
that carbon canisters would be the emission control devices used for
two storage vessels at each facility. We estimate these control devices
would have an annualized cost of $830 per year per facility and would
reduce 240 hours of breathing losses of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per
facility, at a cost of $62,400 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. We
view the costs of this beyond-the-floor option as not being cost
effective.
Based on this analysis, we are proposing amendments to the
currently applicable storage vessel work practice standard provisions
for new and existing affected sources that would establish separate
work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of
an emission control system that is used to comply with HAP emissions
standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. The proposed amendments would
permit owners and operators of fixed roof tanks at new and existing
affected APR sources to bypass the emission control system for up to
240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission
control system, provided that there are no working losses from the
fixed roof tank. To prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners/
operators would not be permitted to add material to the tank during
these planned routine maintenance periods. Under this provision, the
storage vessel would emit HAP to the atmosphere for a limited amount of
time due to breathing losses only, which we expect to be a much lower
HAP emission rate than if there were also working losses resulting from
filling the vessel. The proposed separate work practice standards for
periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system
would result in slightly higher HAP emissions (approximately 0.013 tons
per year per facility) than would occur under the current work practice
standards for storage vessels in the 2014 final rule and would reduce
annualized costs of approximately $830 per year per facility.
We are soliciting comments on these proposed work practice
standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources and
whether they represent practices by the best-performing sources in the
APR Production source category. We are soliciting comments on whether
there are other practices that should be considered in establishing the
work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of
the emission control system for storage vessels at existing and new APR
sources. We are also soliciting comments on whether we have accurately
estimated the HAP emissions and costs compared to the work practice
standards for storage vessels at new and existing sources in the 2014
final rule.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that four to 15 existing sources would be affected by
one or more of the revised requirements being
[[Page 40112]]
proposed in this action. We expect four existing sources to be affected
by the proposed revised back-end CPV requirements. We expect one to 15
existing affected sources to be affected by the proposed work practice
standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission
control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for
vents on fixed roof tanks. We anticipate that some of these existing
affected sources could be affected by more than one of the proposed
requirements.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of
resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project that
the proposed standard would result in an estimated reduction of 207
tons of HAP per year beyond the January 2000, APR MACT standards. As
discussed previously in section III.B.2 of this preamble, the
production-based emissions limit for existing source CPVs in the 2014
final rule was established based on incomplete HAP emissions data.
However, if facilities were to comply with that 2014 final rule, we
estimate a reduction of 271 tons per year of HAP emissions using the
revised HAP emissions estimates based upon the 2015 test data.
In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemptions from standards
that applied during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In
the absence of separate work practice standards that would apply during
these times, affected sources are now required to meet the storage
vessel work practice standards during periods when the emission control
system for the vent on a fixed roof storage tank is shut down for
planned routine maintenance by routing storage vessel vents to a back-
up control device, resulting in an estimated decrease of 0.013 tons of
HAP per year per facility beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards.
The proposed work practice standards we are proposing in this action
would preclude the need to install back-up controls for these vessels.
We anticipate that the proposed revised work practice standards would
reduce HAP emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT
standards as a result of preventing working losses by not filling the
tank during planned routine maintenance of the control device and as a
result of limiting the annual duration of the maintenance period;
however, the HAP emissions reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08
tons of HAP per year projected under the 2014 final rule.
C. What are the cost impacts?
For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are proposing a
revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. We project
that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources would require
emissions controls to meet the proposed revised standard. For cost
purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on
discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the
facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that
may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and
potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our
estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the
best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to
be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These
costs are additional to the 2000 rule, which did not regulate CPVs at
existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final
rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized costs of
$4.2 million,\8\ the proposed revised standard represents an
approximate 50-percent reduction in industry-wide costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See memorandum ``National Impacts Associated with Proposed
Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic
Resins Production Source Category,'' which is available in the
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated
with the proposed work practice standard for periods of planned routine
maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with
emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. Compared to our
revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs,\9\ the proposed storage
vessel work practice standards result in an annualized cost reduction
for each facility of $830 per year, which includes capital cost
reduction of $1,600. We estimate the nationwide annualized cost
reduction to be up to $12,450 per year based on an estimated 15
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Same as footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the economic impacts?
We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production
facilities affected by this proposed rule. We anticipate that two
existing affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this
proposed rule at a total annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per
year compared to the 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of
compliance are estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales.
Accordingly, we do not project that this proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on the affected entities.
The estimated total annualized cost of this proposal can also be
compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with the 2014
final rule. Based on information received since the 2014 rule was
finalized, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply with
the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of
complying with the 2014 final rule to be $4.2 million per year.\10\
Compared to this revised estimate of the cost of compliance with the
2014 final rule, this proposal would provide regulatory relief by
reducing annualized compliance costs by $2.1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Table 3 and Table 4, Memorandum ``National Impacts
Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the
Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,'' which is
available in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information and details of this analysis, including the
conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document,
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to the NESHAP
for Amino/Phenolic Resins,'' which is available in the rulemaking
docket.
E. What are the benefits?
We estimate that this proposed rule would result in an annual
reduction of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the pre-2014 baseline. These
avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and
reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air
pollution of these emissions; however, we have not quantified or
monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking.
See section V.B of this preamble for discussion of existing source CPV
HAP emissions under this proposed rule compared to the 2014 final rule.
VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation
The EPA seeks public comments on the issues addressed in this
proposed rule, as described in this notice. We are soliciting comments
on the proposed emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing
affected sources, whether to extend the compliance date for the
proposed revised emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing
affected sources, whether to promulgate separate emissions standards
for reactor front-end CPVs and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing
affected sources in lieu of leaving them subject to the current CPV
standards, and on the information
[[Page 40113]]
available to the EPA to establish emission standards for front-end CPVs
at existing affected sources. We also request comments on the proposed
work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR
sources during periods when an emission control system for a fixed roof
tank vent is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We are not
soliciting and will not respond to comments addressing any other issues
or other provisions of the 2014 final rule or any other rule, including
other issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the 2014
final rule. Those issues will be addressed, as appropriate, in a
separate, future action.
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 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1869.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This proposed rule would require recordkeeping and reporting of
occurrences when control devices used to comply with the storage tank
provisions undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such
occurrences would be required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports
as specified at 40 CFR 63.1417.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by the
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO include, but are not limited
to, facilities having a NAICS code 325211 (United States Standard
Industrial Classification 2821). Facilities with a NAICS code of 325211
are described as Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing
amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin
types.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112
and 114 of the CAA.
Estimated number of respondents: 15.
Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.
Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,600 (per year).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than September 25, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA has
identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40
CFR 63, subpart OOO.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA's risk assessments for the 2014 final rule (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133) demonstrate that the current regulations are
associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. This proposed action would not alter those conclusions.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In the 2014 final rule, the EPA determined that the current health
risks posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable
and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed
[[Page 40114]]
action would not alter the conclusions made in the 2014 final rule
regarding these analyses.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, Chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart OOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
0
2. Section 63.1400 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1400 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) and is located within an APPU that is part of an
affected source;
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.1402 paragraph (b) is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Back-end continuous
process vent'', ``Front-end continuous process vent'', ``Non-reactor
process vent'', and ``Reactor process vent''; and
0
b. Removing the definitions for ``Non-reactor batch process vent'' and
``Reactor batch process vent''
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1402 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Back-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent
for operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form.
Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking,
grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing
operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does not
include storage and loading of finished product or emission points that
are regulated under Sec. Sec. 63.1404 or 63.1409 through 63.1411 of
this subpart.
* * * * *
Front-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent
for operations in an APPU related to producing liquid resins, including
any product recovery, stripping and filtering operations, and prior to
any flaking or drying operations.
* * * * *
Non-reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent
originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Non-reactor
process vents include, but are not limited to, process vents from
filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks,
and distillation systems.
* * * * *
Reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent
originating from a reactor.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1404 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follow:
Sec. 63.1404 Storage vessel provisions.
* * * * *
(c) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a tank
through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to
comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section,
the control device must be operating except as provided for in
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of
performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the
control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned
routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that tank
emissions are vented to the control device.
(ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system
or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not
exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
(iii) The level of material in the tank shall not be increased
during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is
bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.
(2) The gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from the tank
through a closed-vent system connected to an alternate control device
meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the alterative standard
in paragraph (b) of this section.
0
5. Section 63.1405 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, paragraph (b), and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1405 Continuous process vent provisions.
(a) Emission standards for new affected sources. For each
continuous process vent located at a new affected source with a Total
Resource Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as determined following the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1412(j), less than or equal to 1.2,
the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2)
of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of
this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *
(2) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 85 weight-percent.
Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed
vent systems, control devices, recovery devices). When complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for
purposes of this subpart:
* * * * *
(b) Emission standards for existing affected sources. For each
continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the
owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of
this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (b) of this
section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP to a flare.
(2) The owner or operator of a back-end continuous process vent
shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 4.3
kg of total organic HAP per megagram of resin produced (8.6 pounds of
total organic HAP per ton of resin produced).
(c) Alternative emission standards. As an alternative to complying
with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, an owner or operator may
comply with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) For each continuous process vent located at a new affected
source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from
a continuous process vent meeting the TRE value specified in paragraph
(a) of this section
[[Page 40115]]
to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic
HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control
device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or
less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control
device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(2) For each continuous process vent located at an existing
affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP
emissions from a continuous process vent to a non-flare combustion
control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv
or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet
organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process
vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions
shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.
0
6. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (k)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1412 Continuous process vent applicability assessment
procedures and methods.
(a) General. The provisions of this section provide procedures and
methods for determining the applicability of the control requirements
specified in Sec. 63.1405(a) to continuous process vents.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) If the TRE index value calculated using engineering assessment
is less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator is required either
to perform the measurements specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of
this section for control applicability assessment or comply with the
control requirements specified in Sec. 63.1405(a).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1413 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(4) introductory
text, and paragraphs (c)(2), and (c)(4) through (6);
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(7);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f) and (h)(1);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as (h)(3);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(2);
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3) introductory text and
paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii) introductory text, (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1)
and (3), and (h)(3)(iii);
0
i. Adding paragraph (h)(4);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) through (iv); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(v).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1413 Compliance demonstration procedures.
(a) General. For each emission point, the owner or operator shall
meet three stages of compliance, with exceptions specified in this
subpart. First, the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test
or design evaluation to demonstrate either the performance of the
control device or control technology being used or the uncontrolled
total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent.
Second, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for
demonstrating initial compliance (e.g., a demonstration that the
required percent reduction or emissions limit is achieved). Third, the
owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating
continuous compliance through some form of monitoring (e.g., continuous
monitoring of operating parameters).
* * * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Uncontrolled continuous process vents. Owners or operators
are required to conduct either a performance test or a design
evaluation for continuous process vents that are not controlled through
either a large or small control device.
* * * * *
(3) Design evaluations. As provided in paragraph (a) of this
section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the
organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control
technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a
continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall
address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous
process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the
vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the
operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or
control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the
performance of the control device or control technology or the organic
HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation
also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device
operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on
the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not
the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also
shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels,
received by the control device.
* * * * *
(4) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. The owner or
operator of a control device that has one or more parameter monitoring
level requirements specified under this subpart, or specified under
subparts referenced by this subpart, shall establish a maximum or
minimum level, as denoted on Table 4 of this subpart, for each measured
parameter using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii)
of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the
owner or operator shall operate control devices such that the hourly
average, daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average of
monitored parameters, established as specified in this paragraph,
remains above the minimum level or below the maximum level, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Initial compliance with Sec. 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting
of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the procedures
specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Continuous compliance with Sec. 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1)
(venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the
continuous monitoring procedures specified in Sec. 63.1415.
(5) Initial and continuous compliance with the production-based
emission limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall be
demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this
section.
(6) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission rate limits
specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be demonstrated
following the procedures of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) or this
section.
(i) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit using
a closed vent system and a control device or recovery device or by
routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process shall follow the
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. When complying with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for
purposes of this subpart:
(A) The requirements specified in of Sec. 63.1405 (a)(2)(i)
through (viii).
[[Page 40116]]
(B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS refers to meeting a weight-
percent emission reduction or ppmv outlet concentration requirement,
meeting an emission rate limit in terms of kilograms of total organic
HAP per hour shall also apply.
(ii) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit by
means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section.
(7) Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative
standards specified in Sec. 63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated following
the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Compliance with alternative standard. Initial and continuous
compliance with the alternative standards in Sec. Sec. 63.1404(b),
63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b)(1), and 63.1408(b)(1) are
demonstrated when the daily average outlet organic HAP concentration is
20 ppmv or less when using a combustion control device or 50 ppmv or
less when using a non-combustion control device. To demonstrate initial
and continuous compliance, the owner or operator shall follow the test
method specified in Sec. 63.1414(a)(6) and shall be in compliance with
the monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.1415(e) no later than the initial
compliance date and on each day thereafter.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit
specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine initial compliance
as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous
compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by
comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation as
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the mass emission
limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i).
(ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on
the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The
first continuous compliance average daily emission rate shall be
calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified
operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be
determined by comparing the daily average emission rate to the mass
emission limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i).
(2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, each owner
or operator complying with the emission rate limits specified in Sec.
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable, by means other than those
specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall determine
initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section
and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by
comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation as
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the emission rate
limits specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable.
(ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on
the hourly average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The
first continuous compliance average hourly emission rate shall be
calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified
operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be
determined by comparing the average hourly emission rate to the
emission rate limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), as
applicable.
(3) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the mass
emission limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i). (i) The daily
emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per megagram of product, shall
be determined for each operating day using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU17.000
Where:
ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent, kg
of HAP/Mg product.
Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process
vent i as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph
(h)(3)(ii) of this section, kg/day.
RPm = Amount of resin produced in one month as determined
using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this
section, Mg/day.
(ii) The daily emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per day,
from an individual continuous process vent (Ei) shall be
determined. Once organic HAP emissions have been estimated, as
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled
continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or
control technology, the owner or operator may use the estimated organic
HAP emissions (Ei) until the estimated organic HAP emissions
are no longer representative due to a process change or other reason
known to the owner or operator. If organic HAP emissions
(Ei) are determined to no longer be representative, the
owner or operator shall redetermine organic HAP emissions for the
continuous process vent following the procedures in paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents
or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous
process vents vented to a control device or control technology.
* * * * *
(B) * * *
(1) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be determined
following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Controlled organic HAP emissions shall be determined by
applying the control device or control technology efficiency,
determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, determined in paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.
(iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM (Mg/day), shall be
determined based on production records certified by the owner or
operator to represent actual production for the day. A sample of the
records selected by the owner or operator for this purpose shall be
provided to the Administrator in the Precompliance Report as required
by Sec. 63.1417(d).
(4) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the emission
rate limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii).
(i) The hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour,
shall be determined for each hour during the operating day using
Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU17.001
Where:
EH = Hourly emission rate of organic HAP in the sample,
kilograms per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-\6\ (parts per
million)-\1\ (gram-mole per standard cubic meter)
(kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 [deg]C.
n = Number of components in the sample.
CJ = Organic HAP concentration on a dry basis of organic
compound j in parts per million as determined by the methods
specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.
Mj = Molecular weight of organic compound j, gram/gram-
mole.
QS = Continuous process vent flow rate, dry standard
cubic meter per minute, at a
[[Page 40117]]
temperature of 20 [deg]C, as determined by the methods specified in
paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The average hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per
hour, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 7 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU17.002
Where:
AE = Average hourly emission rate per operating day, kilograms per
hour.
n = Number of hours in the operating day.
(ii) Continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP
concentration shall be determined using the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.1414(a), or by using the engineering assessment procedures in
paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section.
(iii) Engineering assessment. For the purposes of determining
continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in Sec.
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) using Equations 6 and 7, engineering
assessments may be used to determine continuous process vent flow rate
and organic HAP concentration. An engineering assessment includes, but
is not limited to, the following examples:
(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or organic HAP concentration
specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the continuous
process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Estimation of maximum organic HAP concentrations based on
process stoichiometry material balances or saturation conditions; and
(2) Estimation of maximum volumetric flow rate based on physical
equipment design such as pump or blower capacities.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Exceedance of the mass emission limit (i.e., having an
average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to
the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this section for batch process
vents and according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this
section for continuous process vents;
(iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP outlet concentration limit
(i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit)
monitored according to the provisions of Sec. 63.1415(e); and
(v) Exceedance of the emission rate limit (i.e., having an average
value higher than the specified limit) determined according to the
provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1415 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Monitoring for the alternative standards. For control devices
that are used to comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1404(b),
63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b), or 63.1408(b), the owner or
operator shall conduct continuous monitoring of the outlet organic HAP
concentration whenever emissions are vented to the control device.
Continuous monitoring of outlet organic HAP concentration shall be
accomplished using an FTIR instrument following Method PS-15 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall calculate a daily
average outlet organic HAP concentration.
0
9. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (3), (5) introductory text, and (5)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(iii);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); and
0
g. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7) introductory text and
paragraph (g)(5)(v)(E).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1416 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * * (1) TRE index value records. Each owner or operator of a
continuous process vent at a new affected source shall maintain records
of measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations performed
according to the procedures of Sec. 63.1412(j) to determine the TRE
index value. Documentation of engineering assessments, described in
Sec. 63.1412(k), shall include all data, assumptions, and procedures
used for the engineering assessments.
* * * * *
(3) Organic HAP concentration records. Each owner or operator shall
record the organic HAP concentration as measured using the sampling
site and organic HAP concentration determination procedures (if
applicable) specified in Sec. 63.1412(b) and (e), or determined
through engineering assessment as specified in Sec. 63.1412(k).
* * * * *
(5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate
compliance with the mass emission limit specified in Sec.
63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an
operating day.
(iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process
vent determined as specified in Sec. 63.1413(h)(3).
(6) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate
compliance with the emission rate limits specified in Sec.
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records specified in paragraphs
(f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified
in Sec. 63.1413(h)(2)(i).
(ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an
operating day.
(iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous
process vent determined as specified in Sec. 63.1413(h)(4).
(7) When using a flare to comply with Sec. 63.1405(a)(1) or
(b)(1), keep the records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through
(f)(7)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(v) * * *
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.1417 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(8), (e)(1)
introductory text, (f) introductory text, and (f)(1), (2), (5)
introductory text and (12)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f)(14) and (15); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1417 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring
and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use
engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch
emissions episode as described in Sec. 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures
contained in Sec. 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring
levels based on a design evaluation as specified in
[[Page 40118]]
Sec. 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in Sec.
63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in Sec. 63.1413(h)(3),
shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall
contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of
this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission
limit specified in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production
records specified in Sec. 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the
Precompliance Report.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The results of any emission point applicability determinations,
performance tests, design evaluations, inspections, continuous
monitoring system performance evaluations, any other information used
to demonstrate compliance, and any other information, as appropriate,
required to be included in the Notification of Compliance Status under
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and subpart WW, as referred to in Sec.
63.1404 for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, as
referred to in Sec. 63.1405 for continuous process vents; under Sec.
63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (5)(i) and (ii), and (6)(i) and (ii) for
continuous process vents; under Sec. 63.1416(d)(1) for batch process
vents; and under Sec. 63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate batch vent streams.
In addition, each owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Periodic Reports. Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of
this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2)
of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3)
through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate,
shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of
each 180 day period. In addition, for equipment leaks subject to Sec.
63.1410, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat exchange systems subject to
Sec. 63.1409, the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in Sec. 63.1409. Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of
monitoring data to determine compliance for emissions points required
to apply controls by the provisions of this subpart.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a
report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section
or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and
(13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted
semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day
period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 240 days
after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due and shall
cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of
Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall cover each preceding
6-month period.
(2) If none of the compliance exceptions specified in paragraphs
(f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section occurred
during the 6-month period, the Periodic Report required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this section shall be a statement that the affected source
was in compliance for the preceding 6-month period and no activities
specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of
this section occurred during the preceding 6-month period.
* * * * *
(5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified
in Sec. 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), Sec. 63.1407(b)(2), or
Sec. 63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as appropriate, shall
be included:
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified
in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section
applicable to the emission point for which quarterly reporting is
required under paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this section. Information
applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be
submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (f)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *
(14) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified
in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall include the daily average
emission rate calculated for each operating day for which a deviation
occurred.
(15) If there is a deviation from the emission rate limit specified
in Sec. 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report shall include the
following information for each operating day for which a deviation
occurred:
(i) The calculated average hourly emission rate.
(ii) The individual hourly emission rate data points making up the
average hourly emission rate.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control
requirements under Sec. 63.1405, as a result of a process change, the
owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the
performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. The
report may be submitted as part of the next Periodic Report required by
paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17514 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P