[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 128 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39980-40024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05901]
[[Page 39979]]
Vol. 85
Thursday,
No. 128
July 2, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose
Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 128 / Thursday, July 2, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 39980]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415; FRL-10006-76-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU23
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Cellulose Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes and Cellulose
Ether Production source categories regulated under the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Cellulose
Products Manufacturing. The EPA is finalizing the proposed
determination that the risks from both source categories are acceptable
and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. The EPA identified no new cost-effective
controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions
reductions. These final amendments address emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events; add electronic reporting
requirements; add provisions for periodic emissions performance testing
for facilities using non-recovery control devices; add a provision
allowing more flexibility for monitoring of biofilter control devices;
and make technical and editorial changes. Although these amendments are
not expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP),
they will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the
rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 2, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 2, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (2227A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564-7027; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
%R percent recovery
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CEP Cellulose Ethers Production
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMC carboxymethyl cellulose
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
CS2 carbon disulfide
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEC hydroxyethyl cellulose
HI hazard index
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometers
km\2\ square kilometers
lbs/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MC methyl cellulose
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
MIR maximum individual risk
MVP Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NRDC National Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
the Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
Background information. The EPA is finalizing the September 9,
2019, proposed determinations regarding the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR and the proposed revisions to this NESHAP to
address emissions during SSM events and to improve monitoring,
compliance, and implementation. We summarize some of the more
significant comments received regarding the proposed rule and provide
our responses in this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the
proposal not discussed in this preamble and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the memorandum titled National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose Products
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 9, 2019 Proposal, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415. A
``track changes''
[[Page 39981]]
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in
this action is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the source category and how does the NESHAP regulate
HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP in our September 9, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the source category?
A. Residual Risk Review
B. Technology Review
C. Removal of the SSM Exemption
D. Five-Year Periodic Emissions Testing
E. Electronic Reporting
F. Changes to the Monitoring Requirements for Biofilter Control
Devices
G. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP
H. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes... Cellulose Products 325211, 325220, 326121, 326199.
Manufacturing.
Cellulose Ethers Production....... Cellulose Products 325199.
Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by August 31, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further
provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the
rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a
demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both
the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
[[Page 39982]]
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, the EPA must identify categories of sources emitting one or more
of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, the EPA must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). The Agency may
establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the
consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, the EPA must review the technology-based standards and revise
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, the EPA must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 47348, September 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP on
June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40044). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU. The cellulose products manufacturing industry
includes the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes (MVP) source category and
the Cellulose Ethers Production (CEP) source category. The sections
below provide details on each source category and how the NESHAP
regulates the HAP emissions from each source category.
1. Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
The MVP source category includes any facility engaged in the
production of cellulose food casings, rayon, cellophane, or cellulosic
sponges, which includes the following process steps: Production of
alkali cellulose from cellulose and sodium hydroxide (NaOH); production
of sodium cellulose xanthate from alkali cellulose and carbon disulfide
(CS2) (xanthation); production of viscose from sodium
cellulose xanthate and NaOH solution; regeneration of liquid viscose
into solid cellulose; \2\ and washing of the solid cellulose product
(see 65 FR 52171-2, August 28, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MVP operations use different methods and equipment to
complete the regeneration step. Cellulose food casing operations
extrude viscose through a die, forming a tube, while rayon
operations extrude viscose through spinnerets, forming thin strands.
Cellophane operations extrude viscose through a long slit, forming a
flat sheet, while cellulosic sponge operations feed a mixture of
viscose and Glauber's salt into a sponge mold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently five MVP facilities in operation in the United
States. While the NESHAP includes standards for rayon manufacturing,
all rayon plants in the U.S. have shut down since promulgation of the
original rule.
The Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP includes emission
limits, operating limits, and work practice standards for MVP emission
sources. MVP operations are required to reduce the total sulfide
emissions from their process vents and control the CS2
emissions from their CS2 unloading and storage operations.
Cellophane operations are required to reduce the toluene emissions from
their solvent coating operations and toluene storage vessels.
Additionally, MVP operations must comply with work practice standards
for closed-vent systems and heat exchanger systems. The NESHAP also
includes various operating limits, initial performance tests, ongoing
monitoring using continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) and
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), recordkeeping, and
reporting. The rule was amended in June 2005 (70 FR 36524) to correct
the definition for ``viscose process change'' under 40 CFR 63.5610.
2. Cellulose Ethers Production
The CEP source category includes any facility engaged in the
production of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose
(HEC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), methyl cellulose (MC), or
hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), which
[[Page 39983]]
includes the following process steps: Production of alkali cellulose
from cellulose and NaOH; reaction of the alkali cellulose with one or
more organic chemicals to produce a cellulose ether product; \3\
washing and purification of the cellulose ether product; and drying of
the cellulose ether product (see 65 FR 52171; August 28, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To produce CMC, HEC, HPC, MC, and HPMC, alkali cellulose is
reacted with chloroacetic acid, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide,
methyl chloride, and a combination of methyl chloride and propylene
oxide, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently three CEP facilities in operation in the United
States. The Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP includes emission
limits, operating limits, and work practice standards for CEP emission
sources. CEP operations are required to control the HAP emissions from
their process vents, wastewater, equipment leaks, and liquid streams in
open systems. Additionally, CEP operations must comply with work
practice standards for closed-vent systems and heat exchanger systems.
The NESHAP also includes various operating limits, initial performance
tests, ongoing monitoring using CPMS and CEMS, recordkeeping, and
reporting. The rule was amended in June 2005 (70 FR 36524) to correct
the definition for ``cellulose ether process change'' under 40 CFR
63.5610.
C. What changes did we propose for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
NESHAP in our September 9, 2019, proposal?
On September 9, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP, 40
CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, that presented the results of the RTR
analyses, proposed RTR determinations, and several proposed rule
changes. Based on our RTR analyses, the EPA proposed to determine that
the risks from the source categories covered by the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP are acceptable, that the current NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that no new
cost-effective controls are available that would achieve further
emissions reductions.
The proposed rule changes included the following:
Amendments to the SSM provisions;
new periodic air emissions performance testing for
facilities that use non-recovery control devices;
new reporting provisions requiring affected sources to
electronically submit compliance notifications, semiannual reports and
performance test reports using the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI);
amendments to the operating limits and compliance
requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535(i)(7) to allow facilities the
flexibility to monitor conductivity as an alternative to pH monitoring
for determining compliance of biofilter control devices;
revision of the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5505 to clarify
that CS2 storage tanks that are part of a submerged
unloading and storage operation subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU, is not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb;
revision of the performance test requirements in 40 CFR
63.5535(b) and 40 CFR 63.5535(c) to specify the conditions for
conducting performance tests;
revisions to Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63 to correct
an error in the reference to a test method appendix;
revisions to the performance test requirements in Table 4
to Subpart UUUU of Part 63 to add IBR for ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved
2010), ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), and ASTM D6348-12e1;
revision to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5580
and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in Tables 8 and 9 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63 to include the requirements to record and
report information on failures to meet the applicable standard and the
corrective actions taken; and
revisions to the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to align with those sections of
the General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the MVP and the CEP source
categories. This action also finalizes changes to the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP, including removal of the SSM exemption,
addition of electronic reporting, addition of periodic emissions
performance testing, amendments allowing more flexibility for
monitoring of biofilter control devices, and other clarifications and
corrections.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
source category?
1. Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
The EPA is finalizing its proposed finding that risk due to
emissions of air toxics from this source category is acceptable, and is
finalizing its proposed determination that the current NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Based on these determinations, we are not
finalizing any revisions to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP
based on the analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f) for the MVP
source category, and we are readopting the standards.
2. Cellulose Ethers Production
The EPA is finalizing its proposed finding that risk due to
emissions of air toxics from this source category is acceptable, and is
finalizing its proposed determination that the current NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Based on these determinations, we are not
finalizing any revisions to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP
based on the analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f) for the CEP
source category, and we are readopting the standards.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the source category?
1. Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
The EPA is finalizing its proposed determination that there are no
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category.
Therefore, we are not finalizing any revisions to the MACT standards
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. Cellulose Ethers Production
The EPA is finalizing its proposed determination that there are no
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category.
Therefore, we are not finalizing any revisions to the MACT standards
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
The EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related
to SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
[[Page 39984]]
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two
provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated
the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1),
holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. As detailed in section IV.D of the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 47366, September 9, 2019), the EPA proposed to
eliminate the SSM exemption in 40 CFR 63.5515(a) so that the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP would apply at all times (see 40 CFR
63.5515(a)), including during SSM events, consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In
addition to proposing that the SSM exemption be eliminated, we proposed
to remove the requirement for sources to develop and maintain an SSM
plan, as well as certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions related
to the SSM exemption.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed revision of 40 CFR 63.5515(a) to
eliminate the SSM exemption. The EPA is also finalizing the removal of
the SSM exemption in 40 CFR 63.5555(d) that states deviations that
occur during SSM events are not violations if a facility meets the
general duty requirements. In addition, we are updating the references
in Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart UUUU, including the references to 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)--the provisions vacated by Sierra Club v. EPA.
Consistent with that decision, the standards in this rule will now
apply at all times. We are also revising Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of
Part 63 to change several references related to requirements that apply
during periods of SSM. For example, we are eliminating the
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that sources
develop an SSM plan. We also are eliminating and revising certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption.
The EPA did not propose separate standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in section IV.D.1 of the September 9, 2019 proposal preamble,
the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible. For the MVP source category
and the CEP source category, it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the standards. Facilities using thermal
oxidizers as pollution control equipment indicated in the 2018
information collection survey that interlocks shut down processes when
an oxidizer malfunction occurs, and facilities may also have back-up
oxidizers that could be used to treat the emissions. Refer to section
IV.D.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule for further discussion of
the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for
malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, given administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations.
As is explained in more detail below, the EPA is finalizing
revisions to the Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Applicability of
General Provisions to Subpart UUUU, to eliminate requirements that
include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM.
Additionally, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language
related to SSM that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as
periods of malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, we are
finalizing our proposal to revise reporting and record keeping
requirements as they relate to malfunctions, as further described
below. As discussed in the proposal preamble, these revisions are
consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5515(a) that the standards
apply at all times. Refer to section IV.C of this preamble for a
detailed discussion of these amendments.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
The EPA is finalizing new requirements for periodic emissions
testing, electronic reporting, and biofilter effluent conductivity
monitoring. The periodic emissions testing is part of an ongoing effort
to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations.
The new provisions require facilities that use non-recovery control
devices to conduct periodic air emissions performance testing, with the
first of the periodic performance tests to be conducted within July 2,
2023, and thereafter no longer than 5 years following the previous
test. The periodic emissions tests will ensure control devices are
properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute
emissions episodes.
The electronic reporting provisions require owners and operators to
submit all initial notifications, compliance notifications, performance
test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports
electronically through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available at Docket ID Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415-0058.
The new biofilter effluent conductivity monitoring will allow
owners and operators the flexibility to monitor either conductivity or
pH to determine continuous compliance of biofilter control devices with
the standards.
In addition to these new requirements, we are also finalizing
several technical and editorial corrections and incorporating by
reference three test method standards, in accordance with the
provisions of 1 CFR 51.5. For more information on these changes, see 84
FR 47370-47371, September 9, 2019.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are
effective on July 2, 2020. For sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction before the notice of proposed rulemaking was published
on September 9, 2019, the deadline to comply with the amendments in
this rulemaking is no later than 180 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 9, 2019, must comply with all of the
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments, immediately upon
the effective date of the standard, July 2, 2020, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
Through our work with other similar industries required to convert
to electronic reporting, the EPA has found a period of 180 days is
generally necessary to successfully install necessary hardware and
software; become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI; test these new
electronic submission capabilities; and reliably employ
[[Page 39985]]
electronic reporting. Our experience with similar industries has shown
that facilities generally require a time period of 180 days to read and
understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to
ensure that they can meet the standards during SSM periods and make any
necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording
systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to
reflect the revised requirements. Based on our assessment of the
timeframe needed for facilities to comply with the amended rule, the
EPA determined that a compliance date of within 180 days of the final
rule's effective date was practicable. In the proposal, we solicited
comment on whether the 180-day compliance period was reasonable and
specifically requested sources provide information regarding the
specific actions they would need to undertake to comply with the
amended rule. We received no feedback on the proposed compliance
deadlines. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance
with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a
period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period
practicable. Thus, all sources existing at the time the proposed
rulemaking was published on September 9, 2019, must be in compliance
with all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of
the regulation's effective date.
The final rule also requires sources that use a non-recovery
control device to comply with the standards to conduct periodic
performance tests every 5 years. Each source that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 9, 2019, and uses
a non-recovery control device to comply with the standards must conduct
the first periodic performance test on or before July 3, 2020, and
conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 5 years
thereafter following the previous performance test. For each new and
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after September 9, 2019, and uses a non-recovery control
device to comply with the standards, the owners and operators must
conduct the first periodic performance test no later than 5 years
following the initial performance test required by 40 CFR 63.5535 and
conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 5 years
thereafter following the previous performance test. We determined that
a compliance date of 3 years for the first periodic performance test
for sources constructed or reconstructed on or before September 9,
2019, was necessary to avoid scheduling issues that may arise as
affected sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0415.
A. Residual Risk Review
1. Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
a. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the source
category?
The EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions
from MVP sources subject to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
NESHAP. For the MVP source category, we estimated the chronic baseline
inhalation cancer risk to be less than 1-in-1 million, with the risk
driver being acetaldehyde emissions from viscose process equipment. The
total estimated cancer incidence from MVP emission sources based on
actual and allowable emission levels is 0.000006 excess cancer cases
per year, or one case in every 167,000 years. Emissions of acetaldehyde
contributed 100 percent to this cancer incidence. Based on actual and
allowable emissions, no people are exposed to cancer risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-
specific hazard index (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on
actual and allowable emissions, are estimated to be less than 1. Based
on actual and allowable emissions, CS2 emissions from
viscose process equipment are the risk driver for respiratory risks.
For the acute risk assessment, the maximum refined offsite acute
noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) value for the MVP source category is
less than 1 from CS2 emissions (based on the acute (1-hour)
ERPG-1 for CS2). We proposed that environmental and
multipathway risks are not an issue for the MVP source category because
there are no HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment (PB-HAP), lead compounds, or acid gases (hydrochloric acid
(HCl) or hydrogen flouride) identified in the emissions inventory. The
assessment of facility-wide emissions indicated that none of the five
MVP facilities have a facility-wide maximum individual cancer risk
(MIR) greater than 1-in-1 million and the maximum facility-wide cancer
risk is 1-in-1 million, driven by formaldehyde, cadmium compounds, and
nickel compounds from a non-category fugitive area source. The total
estimated facility-wide cancer incidence is 0.00006 excess cancer cases
per year, or one case in every 16,700 years, with zero people estimated
to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-
wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1, driven by
source category emissions of CS2 from viscose process
equipment.
The risk assessment for this source category is contained in the
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose
Processes Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).
b. How did the risk review change for the source category?
The EPA has not made any changes to either the risk assessment or
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of
safety, or adverse environmental effects for the MVP source category
since the proposal was published on September 9, 2019. We are
finalizing the risk review as proposed with no changes (84 FR 47346,
September 9, 2019).
c. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
The EPA did not receive any comments specific to the MVP risk
review and proposed results. We received comments from one commenter
opposing our proposed risk assessment and determination that no
revision to the standards is warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2).
Generally, the commenter was not supportive of the acceptability and
ample margin of safety determinations and suggested changes to the
underlying risk assessment methodology. Examples of the commenter's
suggested changes to the EPA's risk assessment methodology included
lowering the presumptive limit of acceptability for cancer risks to
below 100-in-1 million, including emissions outside of the source
categories in question in the risk assessment, and assuming that
pollutants with noncancer health risks
[[Page 39986]]
have no safe level of exposure. The comments and information provided
by the commenter did not change our risk analyses or the proposed
results that risks from the MVP source category are acceptable and
provide an ample margin of safety.
For detailed summaries and responses to comments, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response
to Public Comments on September 9, 2019 Proposal (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0415).
d. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
As noted in the proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of `approximately 1-in-10 thousand'
'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk
factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer
MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute
noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer
and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation
uncertainties.
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposal, we determined that the risks from the MVP
source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our residual risk review as proposed.
2. Cellulose Ethers Production
a. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the source
category?
The EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions
from CEP sources subject to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
NESHAP. For the source category, we estimated the chronic baseline
inhalation cancer risk using current actual and allowable emissions to
be 80-in-1 million with the risk driver being ethylene oxide emissions
from cellulose ether process equipment used to produce HEC. The total
estimated cancer incidence from CEP emission sources based on actual
and allowable emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or
one case in every 100 years. Emissions of ethylene oxide contributed 99
percent to this cancer incidence based on actual emissions. Based on
actual or allowable emissions, 105,000 people are exposed to cancer
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic
noncancer hazard index (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on
actual and allowable emissions, are estimated to be less than 1. Based
on actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks are driven by
chlorine emissions from cellulose ether process equipment. The maximum
refined offsite acute noncancer HQ value for the source category is
less than 1 from methanol emissions from cellulose ether process
equipment (based on the acute (1-hour) reference exposure level for
methanol). The highest HQ is based on an hourly emissions multiplier of
10 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs were not calculated for
allowable or whole facility emissions. For the multipathway risk
screening, one facility within the CEP source category reported
emissions of multipathway pollutants of lead compounds, carcinogenic
PB-HAP (arsenic), and noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury).
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB-
HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from the
facility exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic PB-HAP
(arsenic compounds) by a factor of 2, and for the noncarcinogenic PB-
HAP (cadmium and mercury) is equal to the Tier 1 screening value of 1.
Based on this Tier 1 screening assessment for carcinogens, the arsenic,
cadmium, and mercury emission rates for the single facility are below
our level of concern. The highest annual average lead concentration of
0.00001 milligrams per cubic meter is well below the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, indicating a low potential for
multipathway impacts of concern due to lead. For the environmental risk
screening, the three CEP facilities reported emissions of lead
compounds, an acid gas (HCl), arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. In the
Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP, no exceedances of the ecological
benchmarks evaluated were found. For lead, we did not estimate any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled
concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of
all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any
ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled
concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling
domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based
on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not
expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category. Results of the assessment of facility-wide
emissions indicate that all three facilities modeled have a facility-
wide MIR cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-
wide cancer risk is 500-in-1 million, mainly driven by ethylene oxide
from sources outside the source category, including holding ponds,
storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases. The
next highest cancer risk was 80-in-1 million, based on whole facility
emissions of ethylene oxide. The total estimated cancer incidence from
the whole facility is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 25 years, with 570,000 people estimated to have cancer risks
greater than 1-in-1 million and 2,000 people with risks greater than
100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is
estimated to be equal to 4, driven by emissions of chlorine from non-
category sources.
The risk assessment for this source category are contained in the
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers
Production Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action.
b. How did the risk review change for the source category?
The EPA did not make any changes to either the risk assessments or
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of
safety, or adverse environmental effects for the CEP source category
since the proposal was published on September 9, 2019. We are
finalizing the residual risk review as proposed with no changes (84 FR
47346, September 9, 2019).
c. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
The EPA received one comment opposing our proposed risk assessment
and determination that no revision to the standards for the CEP source
category are warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). Generally, the
commenter was not supportive of the
[[Page 39987]]
acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations and suggested
changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology. The commenter
asserted that changes to the EPA's risk assessment methodology were
needed, including that the EPA should lower its presumptive limit of
acceptability for cancer risks to below 100-in-1 million, include
emissions outside of the source categories in question in the risk
assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health risks have
no safe level of exposure. The commenter supported the proposal's use
of the 2016 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) value for
ethylene oxide. The comments and information provided by the commenter
did not change our risk analyses or the proposed results that risks
from the CEP source category are acceptable and provide an ample margin
of safety.
For a detailed summary of the comments and our responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response
to Public Comments on September 9, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of `approximately 1-in-10 thousand'
'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk
factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer
MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute
noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer
and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation
uncertainties.
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposal, we determined that the risk from the CEP
source category is acceptable, and the current standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our residual risk review as proposed.
B. Technology Review
1. Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
a. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the source
category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current MACT standards for the MVP source
category are necessary (section IV.C of proposal preamble, 84 FR 47365,
September 9, 2019). Based on the review, we did not identify any
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the
MVP source category, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to
the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our
technology review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for
the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--Proposed Rule (Docket ID
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415-0119).
b. How did the technology review change for the source category?
The EPA has not made any changes to the technology review for the
MVP source category since the proposal was published on September 9,
2019. We are finalizing the technology review as proposed with no
changes (84 FR 47346, September 9, 2019).
c. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
We received comments from one commenter that did not support the
proposed determination from the technology review that no revisions
were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). In general, the commenter
claimed that the EPA failed to consider all HAP emitted by the source
category and that the EPA should set new standards for previously
unregulated emission points/pollutants as part of the technology
review.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the EPA
failed to consider all HAP emitted and that we should set new standards
for previously unregulated emission points/pollutants as part of the
technology review. CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and
revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated
under this section. The EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited
provision requiring the Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the
emission standards already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise
those standards as necessary, taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies. Nothing in CAA section
112(d)(6) directs the Agency, as part of or in conjunction with the
mandatory 8-year technology review, to develop new emission standards
to address HAP or emission points for which standards were not
previously promulgated. As shown by the statutory text and the
structure of CAA section 112, CAA section 112(d)(6) does not impose
upon the Agency any obligation to promulgate emission standards for
previously unregulated emissions as part of the technology review.
When the EPA establishes standards for previously unregulated
emissions, we do so pursuant to the provisions that govern initial
standard setting--CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or, if the
prerequisites are met, CAA section 112(d)(4) or CAA section 112(h).
Establishing emissions standards under these provisions of the CAA
involves a different analytical approach from reviewing emissions
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Though the EPA has discretion to develop standards under CAA
section 112(d)(2) through (4) and CAA section 112(h) for previously
unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency completes the CAA
section 112(d)(6) review, any such action would not be part of the CAA
section 112(d)(6) review, and there is no obligation to undertake such
actions at the same time as the CAA section 112(d)(6) review.
Additionally, given the court-ordered deadline of March 13, 2020, we
did not have sufficient time to analyze existing data, determine if
additional data were needed, collect additional data, and develop new
emission standards. Therefore, we are not establishing new standards
for previously unregulated emissions as part of this rulemaking.
For detailed summaries and responses regarding the technology
review, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 63, subpart UUUU) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 9, 2019 Proposal
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).
d. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the technology review and
determined that no changes to the
[[Page 39988]]
review are needed. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are
finalizing our technology review as proposed. Additional details of our
technology review can be found in the memorandum titled Technology
Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry, which is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415-0119).
2. Cellulose Ethers Production
a. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the source
category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current MACT standards for the CEP source
category are necessary (section IV.C of proposal preamble, 84 FR 47365,
September 9, 2019). Our review of the developments in technology for
the source category did not reveal any changes in practices, processes,
and controls that warrant revisions to the emission standards. Based on
our review, we did not identify any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies for the CEP source category, and,
therefore, we did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA
section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our technology review can be
found in the memorandum, Technology Review for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing Industry--Proposed Rule (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415-0119).
b. How did the technology review change for the source category?
The EPA has not made any changes to the technology review for the
CEP source category since the proposal was published on September 9,
2019. We are finalizing the technology review as proposed with no
changes (84 FR 47346, September 9, 2019).
c. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
The EPA received comments from one commenter that did not support
the proposed determination from the technology review that no revisions
were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). In general, the commenter
claimed that the EPA failed to consider all HAP emitted and that the
EPA should set new standards for previously unregulated emission
points/pollutants as part of the technology review. The commenter also
claimed that the EPA did not consider leak detection and repair,
fenceline monitoring, process changes, dry sorbent injection, or spray
dryer absorbers as part of the technology review.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the EPA
failed to consider all HAP emitted and that we should set new standards
for previously unregulated emission points/pollutants as part of the
technology review. See the discussion of this topic in section IV.B.1.c
of this preamble.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the EPA
failed to consider leak detection and repair, fenceline monitoring,
process changes, dry sorbent injection, or spray dryer absorbers as
part of the technology review. The Agency did consider these options
but found that they were not appropriate for the CEP emission sources.
See the comment response document, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 9, 2019 Proposal,
for more details.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
We evaluated all of the comments on the technology review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology
review as proposed. Additional details of our technology review can be
found in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing Industry, which is available in the docket for
this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415-0119).
C. Removal of the SSM Exemption
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed amendments to the Cellulose Product Manufacturing
NESHAP to remove the provisions related to SSM that are not consistent
with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. The
proposed amendments included:
Revising Table 10 (General Provisions) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and
changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' and adding general duty
regulatory text to 40 CFR 63.5515 that reflect the general duty to
minimize emissions included in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) without the references
to SSM;
revising Table 10 by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no'' in column 4 because 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the
elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty
requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5515;
removing the SSM plan requirements by changing the Table
10 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) from ``yes'' in column 4 to ``no'';
revising the compliance standards in Table 10 by changing
the entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) from ``yes'' to ``no,'' redesignating
40 CFR63.6(h) as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), and changing the ``yes'' to ``no''
in column 4;
revising the performance testing requirements in Table 10
by changing the entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) from ``yes'' in column 4 to
a ``no'' and revising 40 CFR 63.5535(b) and 40 CFR 63.5535(c) to
specify the conditions under which performance tests should be
completed;
revising the monitoring requirements entries in Table 10
for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4
to ``no'' and revising 40 CFR 63.5545(b)(1) to specify the ongoing
operation and maintenance procedures;
adding a new entry to Table 10 for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) with
a ``no'' entered in column 4 and adding the language in 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) to Table 9 except that the final sentence is replaced with
the following: ``The program of corrective action should be included in
the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).'';
revising the recordkeeping requirements in Table 10 by
redesignating the entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv) as 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' and
revising the recordkeeping requirements to Table 9 to clarify what
records are required for SSM events;
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) to Table 10 and
including a ``no'' in column 4 and adding text to Table 9 that is
similar to 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) that describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction;
revising the recordkeeping provisions by adding entries
for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv), 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v), and 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) to Table 10 and adding ``no'' in column 4 for each new
entry;
revising the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) in Table 10 by
redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'';
adding reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.5580 and Table
8 to eliminate periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report and require
sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
[[Page 39989]]
to report the number, date, time, duration, list of affected source or
equipment, estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions,
and the cause of such events in the semiannual compliance report
already required under this rule; and
revising the reporting requirements in Table 10 by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in column 4.
More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in
the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 47366-47370, September 9,
2019).
2. What changed since proposal?
We are finalizing the removal of the SSM exemption as proposed with
no changes (84 FR 47346, September 9, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Only one commenter submitted comments related to our proposed
removal of the SSM exemption, and their comments generally supported
the proposed removal of the SSM provisions but stated that the EPA
cannot finalize a malfunction exemption, as proposed. The Agency did
not propose a malfunction exemption in this rulemaking, therefore, this
portion of the comment was not relevant. We evaluated the comments and
determined that no changes to the proposed SSM provisions are
warranted. A summary of these comments and our responses are located in
the memorandum titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response
to Public Comments on September 9, 2019 Proposal, in the docket for
this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
The EPA evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to
remove the SSM exemption. For the reasons explained in the proposed
rule, we determined that the proposed amendments remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (84 FR 47366-47370, September 9, 2019). We are finalizing our
approach for removing the SSM exemption as proposed.
D. Five-Year Periodic Emissions Testing
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to add new requirements for periodic performance
testing at 40 CFR 63.5535(g)(1), 40 CFR 63.5535(h)(1), and 40 CFR
63.5541 for facilities that use non-recovery control devices. We
proposed that facilities constructed or reconstructed on or before
September 9, 2019, conduct periodic air emissions performance testing
every 5 years, with the first periodic performance test to be conducted
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards and
thereafter every 5 years following the previous test. For facilities
that commence construction after September 9, 2019, we proposed a
periodic performance test be completed within 5 years of the initial
performance required by 40 CFR 63.5535 and that subsequent tests be
conducted every 5 years thereafter.
2. What changed since proposal?
We are finalizing the 5-year periodic emission testing requirements
for facilities that use non-recovery control devices as proposed with
no changes (84 FR 47346, September 9, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
We did not receive any comments on the proposed 5-year periodic
emission testing requirements for facilities that use non-recovery
control devices.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the 5-year periodic
emission testing?
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and
taking into account the fact that the EPA received no comments relating
to the proposed provisions, we are finalizing the requirement for
facilities that use non-recovery control devices to conduct periodic
emissions tests once every 5 years. The new performance tests will
serve as a check on the accuracy of facilities' mass balance
calculations and on the efficiency of the control devices used to
achieve compliance with the standards. The new performance testing will
ensure that control devices are properly maintained over time, thereby
reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes.
E. Electronic Reporting
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed amendments to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
NESHAP to require owners and operators of MVP and CEP facilities to
submit electronic copies of initial notifications, notifications of
compliance status, performance test reports, performance evaluation
reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI.
Additionally, we proposed two broad circumstances in which electronic
reporting extensions may be provided at the discretion of the
Administrator. The EPA proposed these extensions to protect owners and
operators from noncompliance in cases where they are unable to
successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons
outside of their control, including CDX and CEDRI outages and force
majeure events, such as acts of nature, war, or terrorism.
2. What changed since proposal?
No changes have been made to the proposed requirement for owners
and operators of MVP and CEP facilities to submit initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports
electronically using CEDRI. Therefore, we are finalizing the electronic
reporting provisions as proposed with no changes (84 FR 47346,
September 9, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
The EPA received one comment supporting the proposed amendment to
require electronic reporting. The commenter, however, asserted that the
force majeure language should be removed. The commenter expressed
concern that proposed 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5) provides an exemption from
reporting due to force majeure events. The commenter noted that the
Court rejected similar ``affirmative defense'' to civil penalties for
malfunctions (NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The
commenter also argued that adding such an exemption would be arbitrary
and unlawful because it would undermine the reporting requirements by
providing a justification to delay reporting, and, thus, undermine
compliance, enforcement, and fulfillment of the emissions standards
designed to protect public health and the environment at the core of
the CAA's and section 7412's purpose (42 U.S.C. 740).
The commenter is incorrect in referring to 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5) as
an ``exemption.'' This provision provides instructions for actions an
affected source should take if it is unable to submit an electronic
report (required under 40 CFR 63.5420(c)) ``due to a force majeure
event that is about to
[[Page 39990]]
occur, occurs, or has occurred, or if there are lingering effects from
such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior
to the date the submission is due'' under 40 CFR 63.5420(c). We note
that there is no exception or exemption to reporting, only a method for
requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. As specified in 40
CFR 63.5420(c)(5), ``[t]he decision to accept the claim of force
majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely
within the discretion of the Administrator.'' There is no predetermined
timeframe for the length of extension that can be granted, as this is
something best determined by the Administrator when reviewing the
circumstances surrounding the request. Different circumstances may
require a different length of extension for electronic reporting. For
example, a tropical storm may delay electronic reporting for a day, but
a category 5 hurricane event may delay electronic reporting much
longer, especially if the facility has no power, and, as such, the
owner or operator has no ability to access electronically stored data
or to submit reports electronically. The Administrator will be the most
knowledgeable on the events leading to the request for extension and
will assess whether an extension is appropriate and, if so, determine a
reasonable length. The Administrator may even request that the report
be sent in hardcopy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no
new fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation does require that
the report be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the
CEDRI outage is resolved or after the force majeure event occurs.
We also note that the force majeure mimics long-standing language
in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1) regarding the time granted for
conducting a performance test and such language has not undermined
compliance or enforcement.
Moreover, we disagree that the reporting extension will undermine
enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or
reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an
extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by
the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has
not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the
Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report
timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are
infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's
claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters
impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
We also disagree that the ability to request a reporting extension
would undermine compliance and fulfillment of the emissions standards.
While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies
to assess whether owners or operators are in compliance with emissions
standards, reporting obligations have nothing to do with whether an
owner or operator is required to be in compliance with an emissions
standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the standard has
already passed and the owner or operator has certified that they are in
compliance with the standard.
Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope
for submitting a reporting extension request is very limited in that
claims can only be made for events outside of the owner's or operator's
control that occur in the 5 business days prior to the reporting
deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and, in
approving such a claim, the Administrator agrees that something outside
the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator
from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this
reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of
compliance with the emissions standards.
The reporting deadline extension differs from the affirmative
defense to civil penalties for malfunctions the Court vacated as beyond
the EPA's authority under the CAA in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C.
Cir. 2014). Unlike the affirmative defense addressed in NRDC, the
reporting provision does not address penalty liability for
noncompliance with emission standards, but merely addresses, under a
narrow set of circumstances outside the control of the facilities, the
deadline for reporting.
A detailed summary of these comments and our responses are located
in the memorandum titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response
to Public Comments on September 9, 2019 Proposal, in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to electronic
reporting?
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that owners or
operators of MVP and CEP facilities submit electronic copies of
notifications, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual
compliance reports using CEDRI. We also are finalizing, as proposed,
provisions that allow facility owners or operators a process to request
extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond
the control of the facility (i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or
CEDRI or for a force majeure event). The amendments will increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal for owners and operators of MVP
and CEP facilities and will make the data more accessible to regulators
and the public.
F. Changes to the Monitoring Requirements for Biofilter Control Devices
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed revisions to the operating limits in Table 2 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63 to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the
list of biofilter operating limits, revisions to the performance
testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535(i)(7) to add biofilter effluent
conductivity to the list of parameters for which operating limits must
be established during the compliance demonstration, and revisions to
the continuous compliance with operating limits in Table 6 to Subpart
UUUU of Part 63 to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of
parameters to monitor to demonstrate continuous compliance.
2. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has not made any changes to the proposed amendments to
include biofilter effluent conductivity monitoring provisions since
publication of the proposal on September 9, 2019. We are finalizing the
alternative monitoring provisions as proposed with no changes (84 FR
47346, September 9, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
No comments were received on the proposed addition of biofilter
effluent conductivity monitoring provisions.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to monitoring of
biofilter control devices?
The EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to allow monitoring of
biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH for
biofilter control devices.
[[Page 39991]]
As we explained in the proposal, the EPA has conditionally approved an
alternative monitoring request from one company to use conductivity in
lieu of pH monitoring pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8(f). The company's request
stated that conductivity would provide a more accurate operating limit
than pH for strong acids and bases. To allow other sources the
flexibility to use conductivity for monitoring of biofilter control
devices without the need to request approval for each source, we have
finalized the changes as described in the proposal.
G. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
NESHAP
1. What did we propose?
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to
IBR the following documents into 40 CFR 63.14:
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart
UUUU of Part 63;
ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63; and
ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU
of Part 63.
2. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has not made any changes to its proposal to IBR the
documents listed above. We are incorporating these documents by
reference into 40 CFR 63.14 as proposed (84 FR 47346, September 9,
2019). We have also included an IBR for ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, in this
rulemaking. It was determined that the appendices in this method were
needed for use with the ASTM D6348-12e1 method.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
No comments were received on the proposed IBR of the standards into
40 CFR 63.14.
4. What is the rationale for our amendments?
In the proposal, we proposed regulatory text that included IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we have finalized as
proposed the IBR of the four documents listed in sections IV.E.1 and
IV.E.2 of this preamble.
H. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed the following technical and editorial changes:
Add a new paragraph at 40 CFR 63.5505(f) to clarify that
CS2 storage tanks that are part of a submerged unloading and
storage operation subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, are not
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb;
revise the performance test requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535
to specify the conditions for conducting performance tests;
revise the performance evaluation requirements in 40 CFR
63.5545(e)(2) to specify the use of Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F for quality assurance procedures;
revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to correct an error in the reference to a test
method appendix;
revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add IBR for ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved
2010), ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), and ASTM D6348-12e1;
revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5580 and
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements tables (Tables 8 and 9 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to include the requirements to record and
report information on failures to meet the applicable standard and the
corrective actions taken; and
revise the General Provisions applicability table (Table
10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to align with those sections of the
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.
2. What changed since proposal?
We are finalizing the technical and editorial changes as proposed
with no changes (84 FR 47346, September 9, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
No comments were received on the proposed technical and editorial
corrections.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach?
We are finalizing the technical and editorial changes as proposed
for the reasons stated in section IV.E.6 of the proposal preamble.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are currently eight facilities operating in the United States
that conduct MVP and CEP operations that are subject to the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU
affected source for the MVP source category is each cellulose food
casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operation, as defined
in 40 CFR 63.5610. The affected source for the CEP source category is
each cellulose ether operation, as defined in 40 CFR 63.5610.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the MVP and CEP
facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 4,300 tpy.
We are not establishing new emission limits and are not requiring
additional controls; therefore, no quantifiable air quality impacts are
expected as a result of the final amendments to the rule. However, the
final amendments, including the removal of the SSM exemption and
addition of periodic emissions testing, have the potential to reduce
excess emissions from sources by ensuring proper operation of control
devices.
The final amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of the
affected facilities and, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air
emissions impacts.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The eight facilities subject to the final amendments will incur
minimal net costs to meet the revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements and will incur periodic emissions testing costs for add-on
control devices. The nationwide costs associated with the new periodic
testing requirements are estimated to be $490,000 (2018$) over the 5
years following promulgation of the amendments. For further information
on the costs, see the memorandum titled Costs and Environmental Impacts
of Regulatory Options for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing
Industry, and the document titled Supporting Statement for the NESHAP
for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU),
which are both available in the
[[Page 39992]]
docket for this final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).
D. What are the economic impacts?
The final revisions to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP
have some costs associated with the periodic testing requirements and
these costs are not expected to have significant economic impacts.
E. What are the benefits?
The final amendments will result in improved monitoring,
compliance, and implementation of the rule by adding provisions for
periodic emissions testing, requiring MVP and CEP facilities to meet
the same emission standards during SSM events as during normal
operations, and requiring electronic submittal of initial
notifications, performance test results, and semiannual reports. These
improvements will further assist in the protection of public health and
the environment. The electronic reporting requirements will improve
data availability and ultimately result in less burden on the regulated
community.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP,
we performed a demographic analysis for the MVP and CEP source
categories, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic
groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50
km of the facilities. In each analysis, we evaluated the distribution
of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MVP and CEP source
categories across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the MVP source category, we determined that no one is exposed
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer
TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the MVP
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities, available in
the docket for this action.
For the CEP source category, the results of the demographic
analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose
approximately 104,572 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and approximately zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in three
demographic groups (African American, above poverty level, and over 25
without high school diploma) are greater than their respective
nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the CEP
demographic analysis are presented in the technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
The health and risk assessments for this action are contained in two
reports titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose
Processes Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers
Production Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1974.11. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, which eliminate the SSM
reporting and SSM plan requirements, add periodic emissions testing,
provide biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to monitoring
pH, and require electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual
reports, and performance test reports.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include facilities
subject to the NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU).
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU).
Estimated number of respondents: Eight.
Frequency of response: Initial notifications, reports of periodic
performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: 7,256 labor hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $954,000 per year, including $834,000 per
year in labor costs and $120,000 per year in annualized capital or
operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
[[Page 39993]]
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. There
are no small entities in this regulated industry and, as such, this
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the facilities known to be engaged in
the manufacture of cellulose products that would be affected by this
action are owned or operated by tribal governments or located within
tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble. Further documentation is
provided in the following risk reports titled Residual Risk Assessment
for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule and Residual Risk
Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in
Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be
found in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use three voluntary consensus standards (VCS). ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry,'' is used for the measurement of toluene and total
organic HAP. This method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/
mass spectrometer to identify and quantify the 36 volatile organic
compounds (VOC) (or sub-set of these compounds) listed on the ASTM
website. This ASTM standard has been approved by the EPA as an
alternative to EPA Method 18 when the target compounds are all known,
and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable.
ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), ``Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' identifies and measures
purgeable VOC. It has been validated for treated drinking water,
wastewater, and groundwater. ASTM D5790-95 is acceptable as an
alternative to EPA Method 624 and for the analysis of total organic HAP
in wastewater samples. For wastewater analyses, this ASTM method should
be used with the sampling procedures of EPA Method 25D or an equivalent
method in order to be a complete alternative. This ASTM standard is
validated for all of the 21 volatile organic HAP (including toluene)
targeted by EPA Method 624 and is also validated for an additional 14
HAP not targeted by the EPA method.
ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive
Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is
an acceptable alternative to using EPA Method 320 with caveats
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory.
This test method provides the volume concentration of detected
analytes. Converting the volume concentration to a mass emission rate
using the compound's molecular weight, and the effluent volumetric flow
rate, temperature, and pressure is useful for determining the impact of
that compound to the atmosphere. When using ASTM D6348-12e, the
following conditions must be met: (1) The test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8
are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking
Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each
target analyte (Equation A5.5). For the test data to be acceptable for
a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less
than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this
criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for
that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)/(%R)) x 100.
These four ASTM standards are available from ASTM International,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
While the EPA identified 14 other VCS as being potentially
applicable, the Agency has decided not to use them. The use of these
VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation date, and other important technical and policy
considerations. For further information, see the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, in
the docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415-
0059).
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in the technical reports
titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities and
Risk and
[[Page 39994]]
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, which are located
in the public docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 11, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(72), (83), (85),
(89), and (91) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(72) ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to
subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
(83) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved
October 1, 2003, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.457(b), 63.1349, Table
4 to subpart DDDD, table 4 to subpart UUUU, table 4 subpart ZZZZ, and
table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
(85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Sec. 63.1571(a) and Table 4 to subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
(89) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.5799 and 63.5850.
* * * * *
(91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, and appendix A
to this part: Method 325B.
* * * * *
Subpart UUUU--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing
0
3. Section 63.5505 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5505 What emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(f) Carbon disulfide storage tanks part of a submerged unloading
and storage operation subject to this part are not subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
July 23, 1984).
0
4. Section 63.5515 is amended by revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b)
introductory text, adding reserved paragraph (b)(2), and revising
paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.5515 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) On or before December 29, 2020, for each existing source (and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before September 9, 2019), you must be
in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After December 29, 2020, for
each existing source (and for each new or reconstructed source for
which construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September
9, 2019), you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in
this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you
must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and
work practice standards in this subpart at all times on July 2, 2020,
or immediately upon startup, whichever is later.
(b) On or before December 29, 2020, for each existing source (and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before September 9, 2019), you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). After December 29. 2020, for each existing
source (and for each new or reconstructed source for which construction
or reconstruction commenced on or before September 9, 2019), and after
September 9, 2019, for new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you
must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least
to the levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
* * * * *
(c) On or before December 29 2020, for each existing source (and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before September 9, 2019), you must
maintain a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan
according the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a
SSM plan is not required after December 29, 2020. No SSM plan is
required for any new or reconstruction source for
[[Page 39995]]
which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.5535 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing and
reserving paragraph (c), and revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and
(i)(7).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.5535 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) You must conduct each performance test for continuous process
vents and combinations of batch and continuous process vents based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested,
according to the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Viscose process affected sources that must use non-recovery
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery
control devices and incorporate this information in their material
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
Sec. 63.5541.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Cellulose ether affected sources that must use non-recovery
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery
control devices and incorporate this information in their material
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
Sec. 63.5541.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(7) For biofilters, record the pressure drop across the biofilter
beds, inlet gas temperature, and effluent pH or conductivity averaged
over the same time period as the compliance demonstration while the
vent stream is routed and constituted normally. Locate the pressure,
temperature, and pH or conductivity sensors in positions that provide
representative measurement of these parameters. Ensure the sample is
properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5541 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5541 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control
device to comply with Sec. 63.5515 that commenced construction or
reconstruction before September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test
must be performed by July 2, 2023, and subsequent tests no later than
60 months thereafter.
(b) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control
device to comply with Sec. 63.5515 that commences construction or
reconstruction after September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test
must be performed no later than 60 months after the initial performance
test required by Sec. 63.5535, and subsequent tests no later than 60
months thereafter.
0
7. Section 63.5545 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5545 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(3) and (4)(ii),
63.5515(b), and 63.5580(c)(6);
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8, Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix F, and according to the applicable performance
specification listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.5555 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5555 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?
* * * * *
(d) For each affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before September 9, 2019, on or before December 29,
2020, deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec. 63.5515(b). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur on or before December 29, 2020, and during a period you
identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.5515(b). This section no longer
applies after December 30, 2020. For new sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019, this section
does not apply.
0
9. Section 63.5575 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5575 What notifications must I submit and when?
You must submit each notification in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to you by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart.
Initial notifications and Notification of Compliance Status Reports
shall be electronically submitted in portable document format (PDF)
following the procedure specified in Sec. 63.5580(g).
0
10. Section 63.5580 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(2) and (4);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (e)(14) and (g) through (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.5580 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submitting reports under Sec. 63.10, you must submit each compliance
report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) The first compliance report must be submitted no later than
August 31 or February 28, whichever date follows the end of the first
calendar half after the
[[Page 39996]]
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.5495.
* * * * *
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted no later
than August 31 or February 28, whichever date is the first date
following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
(6) Prior to December 29, 2020, all compliance reports submitted by
mail must be postmarked or delivered no later than the dates specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5). Beginning on December 29, 2020, you
must submit all compliance reports following the procedure specified in
paragraph (g) of this section by the dates specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Before December 30, 2020, for each existing source (and for
each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before September 9, 2019), if you had a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you
took actions consistent with your SSM plan, the compliance report must
include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i). After December 29,
2020, you are no longer required to report the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). No SSM plan is required for any new or reconstruction
source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after
September 9, 2019.
* * * * *
(e) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit or operating
limit in this subpart (see Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart), you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1)
through (14) of this section. This includes periods of SSM.
* * * * *
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
(14) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(g) If you are required to submit notifications or reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit
notifications or reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Notifications
must be submitted as PDFs to CEDRI. You must use the semi-annual
compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates
become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The semi-annual
compliance report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this
subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If
you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be
generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(h) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (h) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2), you must submit the
results of the performance evaluation following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
[[Page 39997]]
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in this
paragraph (i).
(j) If you are required to electronically submit a report or
notification through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of the EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(k) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
11. Section 63.5590 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5590 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
12. Table 2 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Operating Limits
As required in Sec. 63.5505(b), you must meet the appropriate
operating limits in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following control
technique . . . you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser................. maintain the daily average condenser
outlet gas or condensed liquid
temperature no higher than the value
established during the compliance
demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer.......... a. for periods of normal operation,
maintain the daily average thermal
oxidizer firebox temperature no lower
than the value established during the
compliance demonstration;
b. after December 29, 2020, for existing
sources (and new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before
September 9, 2019), and on July 2, 2020,
or immediately upon startup, whichever
is later for new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September
9, 2019, maintain documentation for
periods of startup demonstrating that
the oxidizer was properly operating
(e.g., firebox temperature had reached
the setpoint temperature) prior to
emission unit startup.
3. water scrubber............ a. for periods of normal operation,
maintain the daily average scrubber
pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow
rate within the range of values
established during the compliance
demonstration;
[[Page 39998]]
b. after December 29, 2020, for existing
sources (and new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or,
reconstruction commenced on or before
September 9, 2019), and on July 2, 2020,
or immediately upon startup, whichever
is later for new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September
9, 2019, maintain documentation for
periods of startup and shutdown to
confirm that the scrubber is operating
properly prior to emission unit startup
and continues to operate properly until
emission unit shutdown is complete.
Appropriate startup and shutdown
operating parameters may be based on
equipment design, manufacturer's
recommendations, or other site-specific
operating values established for normal
operating periods.
4. caustic scrubber.......... a. for periods of normal operation,
maintain the daily average scrubber
pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow
rate, and scrubber liquid pH,
conductivity, or alkalinity within the
range of values established during the
compliance demonstration;
b. after December 29, 2020, for existing
sources (and new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before
September 9, 2019), and on July 2, 2020,
or immediately upon startup, whichever
is later for new or reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September
9, 2019, maintain documentation for
periods of startup and shutdown to
confirm that the scrubber is operating
properly prior to emission unit startup
and continues to operate properly until
emission unit shutdown is complete.
Appropriate startup and shutdown
operating parameters may be based on
equipment design, manufacturer's
recommendations, or other site-specific
operating values established for normal
operating periods.
5. flare..................... maintain the presence of a pilot flame.
6. biofilter................. maintain the daily average biofilter
inlet gas temperature, biofilter
effluent pH or conductivity, and
pressure drop within the operating
values established during the compliance
demonstration.
7. carbon absorber........... maintain the regeneration frequency,
total regeneration adsorber stream mass
or volumetric flow during carbon bed
regeneration, and temperature of the
carbon bed after regeneration (and
within 15 minutes of completing any
cooling cycle(s)) for each regeneration
cycle within the values established
during the compliance demonstration.
8. oil absorber.............. maintain the daily average absorption
liquid flow, absorption liquid
temperature, and steam flow within the
values established during the compliance
demonstration.
9. any of the control if using a CEMS, maintain the daily
techniques specified in this average control efficiency of each
table. control device no lower than the value
established during the compliance
demonstration.
10. any of the control a. if you wish to establish alternative
techniques specified in this operating parameters, submit the
table. application for approval of the
alternative operating parameters no
later than the notification of the
performance test or CEMS performance
evaluation or no later than 60 days
prior to any other initial compliance
demonstration;
b. the application must include:
Information justifying the request for
alternative operating parameters (such
as the infeasibility or impracticality
of using the operating parameters in
this final rule); a description of the
proposed alternative control device
operating parameters; the monitoring
approach; the frequency of measuring and
recording the alternative parameters;
how the operating limits are to be
calculated; and information documenting
that the alternative operating
parameters would provide equivalent or
better assurance of compliance with the
standard;
c. install, operate, and maintain the
alternative parameter monitoring systems
in accordance with the application
approved by the Administrator;
d. establish operating limits during the
initial compliance demonstration based
on the alternative operating parameters
included in the approved application;
and
e. maintain the daily average alternative
operating parameter values within the
values established during the compliance
demonstration.
11. alternative control a. submit for approval no later than the
technique. notification of the performance test or
CEMS performance evaluation or no later
than 60 days prior to any other initial
compliance demonstration a proposed site-
specific plan that includes: A
description of the alternative control
device; test results verifying the
performance of the control device; the
appropriate operating parameters that
will be monitored; and the frequency of
measuring and recording to establish
continuous compliance with the operating
limits;
b. install, operate, and maintain the
parameter monitoring system for the
alternative control device in accordance
with the plan approved by the
Administrator;
c. establish operating limits during the
initial compliance demonstration based
on the operating parameters for the
alternative control device included in
the approved plan; and
d. maintain the daily average operating
parameter values for the alternative
control technique within the values
established during the compliance
demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
13. Table 3 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits and Work Practice Standards
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you
must demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission
limits and work practice standards according to the requirements in the
following table:
[[Page 39999]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the following emission limit you have demonstrated initial
For . . . at . . . or work practice standard . . . compliance if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all a. each existing i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
viscose process cellulose food sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
vents casing operation carbon disulfide) by at least 25 during the month-long compliance
percent based on a 6-month demonstration or using
rolling average; engineering assessments, are
ii. for each vent stream that you reduced by at least 25 percent;
control using a control device, (2) you have a record of the range
route the vent stream through a of operating parameter values
closed-vent system to the control over the month-long compliance
device; and demonstration during which the
iii. comply with the work practice average uncontrolled total
standard for closed-vent systems sulfide emissions were reduced by
at least 25 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
b. each new i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
cellulose food sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
casing operation carbon disulfide) by at least 75 during the month-long compliance
percent based on a 6-month demonstration or using
rolling average; engineering assessments, are
ii. for each vent stream that you reduced by at least 75 percent;
control using a control device, (2) you have a record of the range
route the vent stream through a of operating parameter values
closed-vent system to the control over the month-long compliance
device; and demonstration during which the
iii. comply with the work practice average uncontrolled total
standard for closed-vent systems. sulfide emissions were reduced by
at least 75 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
c. each existing i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
rayon operation sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
carbon disulfide) by at least 35 during the month-long compliance
percent within 3 years after the demonstration or using
effective date based on a 6-month engineering assessments, are
rolling average; for each vent reduced by at least 35 percent
stream that you control using a within 3 years after the
control device, route the vent effective date;
stream through a closed-vent (2) you have a record of the
system to the control device; and average operating parameter
comply with the work practice values over the month-long
standard for closed-vent systems; compliance demonstration during
and which the average uncontrolled
total sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least 35 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems; and
.................. ii. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
carbon disulfide) by at least 40 during the month-long compliance
percent within 8 years after the demonstration or using
effective date based on a 6-month engineering assessments, are
rolling average; for each vent reduced by at least 40 percent
stream that you control using a within 8 years after the
control device, route the vent effective date;
stream through a closed-vent (2) you have a record of the
system to the control device; and average operating parameter
comply with the work practice values over the month-long
standard for closed-vent systems. compliance demonstration during
which the average uncontrolled
total sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least 40 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of the total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
[[Page 40000]]
d. each new rayon i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
operation sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
carbon disulfide) by at least 75 during the month-long compliance
percent; based on a 6-month demonstration or using
rolling average; engineering assessments, are
ii. for each vent stream that you reduced by at least 75 percent;
control using a control device, (2) you have a record of the
route the vent stream through a average operating parameter
closed-vent system to the control values over the month-long
device; and compliance demonstration during
iii. comply with the work practice which the average uncontrolled
standard for closed-vent systems. total sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least 75 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of total sulfide
missions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
e. each existing i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
or new cellulosic sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
sponge operation carbon disulfide) by at least 75 during the month-long compliance
percent based on a 6-month demonstration or using
rolling average; engineering assessments, are
ii. for each vent stream that you reduced by at least 75 percent;
control using a control device, (2) you have a record of the
route the vent stream through a average operating parameter
closed-vent system to the control values over the month-long
device; and compliance demonstration during
iii. comply with the work practice which the average uncontrolled
standard for closed-vent systems. total sulfide emissions were
reduced by at least 75 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine and the percent
reduction of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
f. each existing i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) the average uncontrolled total
or new cellophane sulfide emissions (reported as sulfide emissions, determined
operation carbon disulfide) by at least 75 during the month-long compliance
percent based on a 6-month demonstration or using
rolling average; engineering assessments, are
ii. for each vent stream that you reduced by at least 75 percent;
control using a control device (2) you have a record of the
(except for retractable hoods average operating parameter
over sulfuric acid baths at a values over the month-long
cellophane operation), route the compliance demonstration during
vent stream through a closed-vent which the average uncontrolled
system to the control device; and total sulfide emissions were
iii. comply with the work practice reduced by at least 75 percent;
standard for closed-vent systems. (3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of total sulfide
emissions; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
2. the sum of all a. each existing i. reduce uncontrolled toluene (1) the average uncontrolled
solvent coating or new cellophane emissions by at least 95 percent toluene emissions, determined
process vents operation based on a 6-month rolling during the month-long compliance
average; demonstration or using
ii. for each vent stream that you engineering assessments, are
control using a control device, reduced by at least 95 percent;
route the vent stream through a (2) you have a record of the
closed-vent system to the control average operating parameter
device; and values over the month-long
iii. comply with the work practice compliance demonstration during
standard for closed-vent systems. which the average uncontrolled
toluene emissions were reduced by
at least 95 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of toluene emissions;
and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
[[Page 40001]]
3. the sum of all a. each existing i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) average uncontrolled total
cellulose ether or new cellulose organic HAP emissions by at least organic HAP emissions, measured
process vents ether operation 99 percent; during the performance test or
using a ii. for each vent stream that you determined using engineering
performance test control using a control device, estimates are reduced by at least
to demonstrate route the vent stream through a 99 percent;
initial closed-vent system to the control (2) you have a record of the
compliance; or device; and average operating parameter
iii. comply with the work practice values over the performance test
standard for closed-vent systems. during which the average
uncontrolled total organic HAP
emissions were reduced by at
least 99 percent; and
(3) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
b. each existing i. reduce total uncontrolled (1) average uncontrolled total
or new cellulose organic HAP emissions by at least organic HAP emissions, determined
ether operation 99 percent based on a 6-month during the month-long compliance
using a material rolling average; demonstration or using
balance ii. for each vent stream that you engineering estimates are reduced
compliance control using a control device, by at least 99 percent;
demonstration to route the vent stream through a (2) you have a record of the
demonstrate closed-vent system to the control average operation parameter
initial device; and values over the month-long
compliance iii. comply with the work practice compliance demonstration during
standard for closed-vent systems. which the average uncontrolled
total organic HAP emissions were
reduced by at least 99 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of total organic HAP
emissions;
(4) if you use extended cookout to
comply, you measure the HAP
charged to the reactor, record
the grade of product produced,
and then calculate reactor
emissions prior to extended
cookout by taking a percentage of
the total HAP charged.
4. closed-loop each existing or operate and maintain the closed- you have a record certifying that
systems new cellulose loop system for cellulose ether a closed-loop system is in use
ether operation operations. for cellulose ether operations.
5. each carbon a. each existing i. reduce uncontrolled carbon (1) you have a record documenting
disulfide unloading or new viscose disulfide emissions by at least the 83-percent reduction in
and storage process affected 83 percent from unloading and uncontrolled carbon disulfide
operation source storage operations based on a 6- emissions; and
month rolling average if you use (2) if venting to a control device
an alternative control technique to reduce emissions, you comply
not listed in this table for with the initial compliance
carbon disulfide unloading and requirements for closed-vent
storage operations; if using a systems;
control device to reduce
emissions, route emissions
through a closed-vent system to
the control device; and comply
with the work practice standard
for closed-vent systems;
ii. reduce uncontrolled carbon (1) you comply with the initial
disulfide by at least 0.14 compliance requirements for
percent from viscose process viscose process vents at existing
vents based on a 6-month rolling or new cellulose food casing,
average; for each vent stream rayon, cellulosic sponge, or
that you control using a control cellophane operations, as
device, route the vent stream applicable;
through a closed-vent system to (2) the 0.14-percent reduction
the control device; and comply must be in addition to the
with the work practice standard reduction already required for
for closed-vent systems; viscose process vents at existing
or new cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellulosic sponge, or
cellophane operations, as
applicable; and
(3) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems;
iii. install a nitrogen unloading you have a record certifying that
and storage system; or a nitrogen unloading and storage
system is in use; or
[[Page 40002]]
iv. install a nitrogen unloading (1) you have a record certifying
system; reduce uncontrolled that a nitrogen unloading system
carbon disulfide by at least is in use;
0.045 percent from viscose (2) you comply with the initial
process vents based on a 6-month compliance requirements for
rolling average; for each vent viscose process vents at existing
stream that you control using a or new cellulose food casing,
control device, route the vent rayon, cellulosic sponge, or
stream through a closed-vent cellophane operations, as
system to the control device; and applicable;
comply with the work practice (3) the 0.045-percent reduction
standard for closed-vent systems. must be in addition to the
reduction already required for
viscose process vents at
cellulose food casing, rayon,
cellulosic sponge, or cellophane
operations, as applicable; and
(4) you comply with the initial
compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
6. each toluene a. each existing i. reduce uncontrolled toluene (1) the average uncontrolled
storage vessel or new cellophane emissions by at least 95 percent toluene emissions, determined
operation based on a 6-month rolling during the month-long compliance
average; demonstration or using
ii. if using a control device to engineering assessments, are
reduce emissions, route the reduced by at least 95 percent;
emissions through a closed-vent (2) you have a record of the
system to the control device; and average operating parameter
iii. comply with the work practice values over the month-long
standard for closed-vent systems. compliance demonstration during
which the average uncontrolled
toluene emissions were reduced by
at least 95 percent;
(3) you prepare a material balance
that includes the pertinent data
used to determine the percent
reduction of toluene emissions;
and
(4) if venting to a control device
to reduce emissions, you comply
with the initial compliance
requirements for closed-vent
systems.
7. equipment leaks a. each existing i. comply with the applicable you comply with the applicable
or new cellulose equipment leak standards of Sec. requirements described in the
ether operation Sec. 63.162 through 63.179; or Notification of Compliance Status
Report provisions in Sec.
63.182(a)(2) and (c)(1) through
(3), except that references to
the term ``process unit'' mean
``cellulose ether process unit''
for the purposes of this subpart;
or
ii. comply with the applicable you comply with the applicable
equipment leak standards of Sec. requirements described in the
Sec. 63.1021 through 63.1027. Initial Compliance Status Report
provisions of Sec. 63.1039(a),
except that references to the
term ``process unit'' mean
``cellulose ether process unit''
for the purposes of this subpart.
8. all sources of each existing or comply with the applicable you comply with the applicability
wastewater new cellulose wastewater provisions of Sec. and Group 1/Group 2 determination
emissions ether operation 63.105 and Sec. Sec. 63.132 provisions of Sec. 63.144 and
through 63.140. the initial compliance provisions
of Sec. Sec. 63.105 and
63.145.
9. liquid streams in each existing or comply with the applicable you install emission suppression
open systems new cellulose provisions of Sec. 63.149, equipment and conduct an initial
ether operation except that references to inspection according to the
``chemical manufacturing process provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.133
unit'' mean ``cellulose ether through 63.137.
process unit'' for the purposes
of this subpart.
10. closed-vent a. each existing i. conduct annual inspections, (1) you conduct an initial
system used to or new affected repair leaks, and maintain inspection of the closed-vent
route emissions to source records as specified in Sec. system and maintain records
a control device 63.148. according to Sec. 63.148;
(2) you prepare a written plan for
inspecting unsafe-to-inspect and
difficult-to-inspect equipment
according to Sec. 63.148(g)(2)
and (h)(2); and
(3) you repair any leaks and
maintain records according to
Sec. 63.148.
[[Page 40003]]
11. closed-vent a. each existing i. install, calibrate, maintain, you have a record documenting that
system containing a or new affected and operate a flow indicator as you installed a flow indicator as
bypass line that source specified in Sec. 63.148(f)(1); specified in Table 1 to this
could divert a vent or subpart; or
stream away from a
control device,
except for
equipment needed
for safety purposes
(described in Sec.
63.148(f)(3))
.................. ii. secure the bypass line valve you have record documenting that
in the closed position with a car- you have secured the bypass line
seal or lock-and-key type valve as specified in Table 1 to
configuration and inspect the this subpart.
seal or closure mechanism at
least once per month as specified
in Sec. 63.148(f)(2)
12. heat exchanger a. each existing i. monitor and repair the heat (1) you determine that the heat
system that cools or new affected exchanger system according to exchanger system is exempt from
process equipment source Sec. 63.104(a) through (e), monitoring requirements because
or materials in the except that references to it meets one of the conditions in
process unit ``chemical manufacturing process Sec. 63.104(a)(1) through (6),
unit'' mean ``cellulose food and you document this finding in
casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, your Notification of Compliance
cellophane, or cellulose ether Status Report; or
process unit'' for the purposes (2) if your heat exchanger system
of this subpart. is not exempt, you identify in
your Notification of Compliance
Status Report the HAP or other
representative substance that you
will monitor, or you prepare and
maintain a site-specific plan
containing the information
required by Sec.
63.104(c)(1)(i) through (iv) that
documents the procedures you will
use to detect leaks by monitoring
surrogate indicators of the leak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
14. Table 4 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5530(b) and 63.5535(a), (b), (g)(1),
and (h)(1), you must conduct performance tests, other initial
compliance demonstrations, and CEMS performance evaluations and
establish operating limits according to the requirements in the
following table:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
according to the following requirements
For . . . at . . . you must . . . using . . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all process vents..... a. each existing or i. select sampling EPA Method 1 or 1A in sampling sites must be located at the
new affected source. port's location and appendix A-1 to part inlet and outlet to each control
the number of traverse 60 of this chapter; device;
points;
ii. determine velocity EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, you may use EPA Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
and volumetric flow 2D, 2F, or 2G in or 2G as an alternative to using EPA
rate; appendices A-1 and A-2 Method 2, as appropriate;
to part 60 of this
chapter;
iii. conduct gas (1) EPA Method 3, 3A, you may use EPA Method 3A or 3B as an
analysis; and, or 3B in appendix A-2 alternative to using EPA Method 3; or,
to part 60 of this
chapter; or,
....................... (2) ASME PTC 19.10- you may use ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10
1981--Part 10 as an alternative to using the manual
(incorporated by procedures (but not instrumental
reference--see Sec. procedures) in EPA Method 3B.
63.14); and,
iv. measure moisture EPA Method 4 in
content of the stack appendix A-3 to part
gas. 60 of this chapter.
[[Page 40004]]
2. the sum of all viscose process a. each existing or i. measure total (1) EPA Method 15 in (a) you must conduct testing of
vents. new viscose process sulfide emissions. appendix A-5 to part emissions at the inlet and outlet of
source. 60 of this chapter; or each control device;
(b) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous viscose
process vents and combinations of batch
and continuous viscose process vents at
normal operating conditions, as
specified in Sec. 63.5535;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch viscose process
vents as specified in Sec. 63.490(c),
except that the emission reductions
required for process vents under this
subpart supersede the emission
reductions required for process vents
under subpart U of this part; and
(d) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
....................... (2) carbon disulfide (a) you must measure emissions at the
and/or hydrogen inlet and outlet of each control device
sulfide CEMS, as using CEMS;
applicable; (b) you must install, operate, and
maintain the CEMS according to the
applicable performance specification
(PS-7, PS-8, PS-9, or PS-15) of
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter;
and
(c) you must collect CEMS emissions data
at the inlet and outlet of each control
device during the period of the initial
compliance demonstration and determine
the CEMS operating limit during the
period of the initial compliance
demonstration.
3. the sum of all solvent coating a. each existing or i. measure toluene (1) EPA Method 18 in (a) you must conduct testing of
process vents. new cellophane emissions. appendix A-6 to part emissions at the inlet and outlet of
operation. 60 of this chapter, or each control device;
Method 320 in appendix (b) you may use EPA Method 18 or 320 to
A to part 63; or determine the control efficiency of any
control device for organic compounds;
for a combustion device, you must use
only HAP that are present in the inlet
to the control device to characterize
the percent reduction across the
combustion device;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous solvent
coating process vents and combinations
of batch and continuous solvent coating
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch solvent coating
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the initial
compliance demonstration.
[[Page 40005]]
....................... (2) ASTM D6420-99 (a) you must conduct testing of
(Reapproved 2010) emissions at the inlet and outlet of
(incorporated by each control device;
reference--see Sec. (b) you may use ASTM D6420-99
63.14); or (Reapproved 2010) as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only where: The target
compound(s) are known and are listed in
ASTM D6420 as measurable; this ASTM
should not be used for methane and
ethane because their atomic mass is
less than 35; ASTM D6420 should never
be specified as a total VOC method;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous solvent
coating process vents and combinations
of batch and continuous solvent coating
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch solvent coating
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
[[Page 40006]]
....................... (3) ASTM D6348-12e1 (a) you must conduct testing of
(incorporated by emissions at the inlet and outlet of
reference--see Sec. each control device;
63.14). (b) you may use ASTM D6348-12e1 as an
alternative to EPA Method 320 only
where the following conditions are met:
(1) The test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D
6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are
mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03
Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent recovery (%R) must be
determined for each target analyte
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test
data to be acceptable for a compound,
%R must be greater than or equal to 70
percent and less than or equal to 130
percent. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound,
the test data are not acceptable for
that compound and the test must be
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure
should be adjusted before a retest).
The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all
field measurements must be corrected
with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following
equation: Reported Results = ((Measured
Concentration in the Stack)/(%R)) x
100. ASTM D6348-03 is incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14.
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous solvent
coating process vents and combinations
of batch and continuous solvent coating
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch solvent coating
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
[[Page 40007]]
4. the sum of all cellulose ether a. each existing or i. measure total (1) EPA Method 18 in (a) you must conduct testing of
process vents. new cellulose ether organic HAP emissions. appendix A-6 to part emissions at the inlet and outlet of
operation. 60 of this chapter or each control device;
Method 320 in appendix (b) you may use EPA Method 18 or 320 to
A to this part, or determine the control efficiency of any
control device for organic compounds;
for a combustion device, you must use
only HAP that are present in the inlet
to the control device to characterize
the percent reduction across the
combustion device;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous cellulose
ether process vents and combinations of
batch and continuous cellulose ether
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch cellulose ether
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial performance
test and determine the CPMS operating
limit during the period of the initial
performance test.
....................... (2) ASTM D6420-99 (a) you must conduct testing of
(Reapproved 2010); or emissions at the inlet and outlet of
each control device;
(b) you may use ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2010) as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only where: The target
compound(s) are known and are listed in
ASTM D6420 as measurable; this ASTM
should not be used for methane and
ethane because their atomic mass is
less than 35; ASTM D6420 should never
be specified as a total VOC method;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous cellulose
ether process vents and combinations of
batch and continuous cellulose ether
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch cellulose ether
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial performance
test and determine the CPMS operating
limit during the period of the initial
performance test.
[[Page 40008]]
....................... (3) ASTM D6348-12e1. (a) you must conduct testing of
emissions at the inlet and outlet of
each control device;
(b) you may use ASTM D6348-12e1 as an
alternative to EPA Method 320 only
where the following conditions are met:
(1) The test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D
6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are
mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03
Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent recovery (%R) must be
determined for each target analyte
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test
data to be acceptable for a compound,
%R must be greater than or equal to 70
percent and less than or equal to 130
percent. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound,
the test data are not acceptable for
that compound and the test must be
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure
should be adjusted before a retest).
The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all
field measurements must be corrected
with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following
equation: Reported Results = ((Measured
Concentration in the Stack)/(%R)) x
100.
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous solvent
coating process vents and combinations
of batch and continuous solvent coating
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch solvent coating
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
....................... (4) EPA Method 25 in (a) you must conduct testing of
appendix A-7 to part emissions at the inlet and outlet of
60 of this chapter; or each control device;
(b) you may use EPA Method 25 to
determine the control efficiency of
combustion devices for organic
compounds; you may not use EPA Method
25 to determine the control efficiency
of noncombustion control devices;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous cellulose
ether process vents and combinations of
batch and continuous cellulose ether
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch cellulose ether
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial performance
test and determine the CPMS operating
limit during the period of the initial
performance test
[[Page 40009]]
....................... (5) EPA Method 25A in (a) you must conduct testing of
appendix A-7 to part emissions at the inlet and outlet of
60 of this chapter. each control device;
(b) you may use EPA Method 25A if: An
exhaust gas volatile organic matter
concentration of 50 ppmv or less is
required in order to comply with the
emission limit; the volatile organic
matter concentration at the inlet to
the control device and the required
level of control are such as to result
in exhaust volatile organic matter
concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
because of the high control efficiency
of the control device, the anticipated
volatile organic matter concentration
at the control device exhaust is 50
ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet
concentration;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous cellulose
ether process vents and combinations of
batch and continuous cellulose ether
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch cellulose ether
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and,
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial performance
test and determine the CPMS operating
limit during the period of the initial
performance test.
5. each toluene storage vessel...... a. each existing or i. measure toluene (1) EPA Method 18 in (a) if venting to a control device to
new cellophane emissions. appendix A-6 to part reduce emissions, you must conduct
operation. 60 of this chapter or testing of emissions at the inlet and
Method 320 in appendix outlet of each control device;
A to this part; or (b) you may use EPA Method 18 or 320 to
determine the control efficiency of any
control device for organic compounds;
for a combustion device, you must use
only HAP that are present in the inlet
to the control device to characterize
the percent reduction across the
combustion device;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous storage
vessel vents and combinations of batch
and continuous storage vessel vents at
normal operating conditions, as
specified in Sec. 63.5535 for
continuous process vents;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch storage vessel
vents as specified in Sec. 63.490(c)
for batch process vents, except that
the emission reductions required for
process vents under this subpart
supersede the emission reductions
required for process vents under
subpart U of this part; and,
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
[[Page 40010]]
....................... (2) ASTM D6420-99; or (a) if venting to a control device to
reduce emissions, you must conduct
testing of emissions at the inlet and
outlet of each control device;
(b) you may use ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2010) as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only where: The target
compound(s) are known and are listed in
ASTM D6420 as measurable; this ASTM
should not be used for methane and
ethane because their atomic mass is
less than 35; ASTM D6420 should never
be specified as a total VOC method;
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous storage
vessel vents and combinations of batch
and continuous storage vessel vents at
normal operating conditions, as
specified in Sec. 63.5535 for
continuous process vents;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch storage vessel
vents as specified in Sec. 63.490(c)
for batch process vents, except that
the emission reductions required for
process vents under this subpart
supersede the emission reductions
required for process vents under
subpart U of this part; and,
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
[[Page 40011]]
....................... (3) ASTM D6348-12e1. (a) you must conduct testing of
emissions at the inlet and outlet of
each control device;
(b) you may use ASTM D6348-12e1 as an
alternative to EPA Method 320 only
where the following conditions are met:
(1) The test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D
6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are
mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03
Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent recovery (%R) must be
determined for each target analyte
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test
data to be acceptable for a compound,
%R must be greater than or equal to 70
percent and less than or equal to 130
percent. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound,
the test data are not acceptable for
that compound and the test must be
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure
should be adjusted before a retest).
The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all
field measurements must be corrected
with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following
equation: Reported Results = ((Measured
Concentration in the Stack)/(%R)) x
100.
(c) you must conduct testing of
emissions from continuous solvent
coating process vents and combinations
of batch and continuous solvent coating
process vents at normal operating
conditions, as specified in Sec.
63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of
emissions from batch solvent coating
process vents as specified in Sec.
63.490(c), except that the emission
reductions required for process vents
under this subpart supersede the
emission reductions required for
process vents under subpart U of this
part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during
the period of the initial compliance
demonstration and determine the CPMS
operating limit during the period of
the initial compliance demonstration.
6. the sum of all process vents each existing or new measure visible EPA Method 22 in you must conduct the flare visible
controlled using a flare. affected source. emissions. appendix A-7 to part emissions test according to Sec.
60 of this chapter. 63.11(b).
7. equipment leaks.................. a. each existing or i. measure leak rate. (1) applicable you must follow all requirements for the
new cellulose ether equipment leak test applicable equipment leak test methods
operation. methods in Sec. in Sec. 63.180; or
63.180; or
....................... (2) applicable you must follow all requirements for the
equipment leak test applicable equipment leak test methods
methods in Sec. in Sec. 63.1023.
63.1023.
8. all sources of wastewater a. each existing or i. measure wastewater (1) applicable (a) You must follow all requirements for
emissions. new cellulose ether HAP emissions. wastewater test the applicable wastewater test methods
operation. methods and procedures and procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.144
in Sec. Sec. 63.144 and 63.145; or
and 63.145; or
[[Page 40012]]
....................... (2) applicable (a) you must follow all requirements for
wastewater test the applicable waste water test methods
methods and procedures and procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.144
in Sec. Sec. 63.144 and 63.145, except that you may use
and 63.145, using ASTM ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012) as an
D5790-95 (Reapproved alternative to EPA Method 624, under
2012) (incorporated by the condition that this ASTM method be
reference--see Sec. used with the sampling procedures of
63.14) as an EPA Method 25D or an equivalent method.
alternative to EPA
Method 624 in appendix
A to part 163 of this
chapter.
9. any emission point............... a. each existing or i. conduct a CEMS (1) applicable (a) you must conduct the CEMS
new affected source performance requirements in Sec. performance evaluation during the
using a CEMS to evaluation. 63.8 and applicable period of the initial compliance
demonstrate performance demonstration according to the
compliance. specification (PS-7, applicable requirements in Sec. 63.8
PS-8, PS-9, or PS-15) and the applicable performance
in appendix B to part specification (PS-7, PS-8, PS-9, or PS-
60 of this chapter. 15) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B;
(b) you must install, operate, and
maintain the CEMS according to the
applicable performance specification
(PS-7, PS-8, PS-9, or PS-15) of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B; and
(c) you must collect CEMS emissions data
at the inlet and outlet of each control
device during the period of the initial
compliance demonstration and determine
the CEMS operating limit during the
period of the initial compliance
demonstration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
15. Table 5 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limits and Work Practice Standards
As required in Sec. 63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work practice
standards according to the requirements in the following table:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the following emission limit or work you must demonstrate continuous compliance
For . . . at . . . practice standard . . . by . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all viscose process a. each existing or new i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide (1) maintaining a material balance that
vents. viscose process emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) includes the pertinent data used to
affected source. by at least the specified percentage determine the percent reduction of total
based on a 6-month rolling average; sulfide emissions;
ii. for each vent stream that you control (2) documenting the percent reduction of
using a control device (except for total sulfide emissions using the
retractable hoods over sulfuric acid pertinent data from the material balance;
baths at a cellophane operation), route and
the vent stream through a closed-vent (3) complying with the continuous
system to the control device; and compliance requirements for closed-vent
iii. comply with the work practice systems.
standard for closed-vent systems (except
for retractable hoods over sulfuric acid
baths at a cellophane operation)
2. the sum of all solvent coating a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions (1) maintaining a material balance that
process vents. cellophane operation. by at least 95 percent based on a 6-month includes the pertinent data used to
rolling average; determine the percent reduction of
ii. for each vent stream that you control toluene emissions;
using a control device, route the vent (2) documenting the percent reduction of
stream through a closed-vent system to toluene emissions using the pertinent
the control device; and data from the material balance; and
iii. comply with the work practice (3) complying with the continuous
standard for closed-vent systems. compliance requirements for closed-vent
systems.
[[Page 40013]]
3. the sum of all cellulose ether a. each existing or new i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP (1) complying with the continuous
process vents. cellulose ether emissions by at least 99 percent; compliance requirements for closed-vent
operation using a ii. for each vent stream that you control systems; or
performance test to using a control device, route the vent (2) if using extended cookout to comply,
demonstrate initial stream through a closed-vent system to monitoring reactor charges and keeping
compliance; or. the control device; and, records to show that extended cookout was
iii. comply with the work practice employed.
standard for closed-vent systems; or
b. each existing or new i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP (1) maintaining a material balance that
cellulose ether emissions by at least 99 percent based on includes the pertinent data used to
operation using a a 6-month rolling average; determine the percent reduction of total
material balance ii. for each vent stream that you control organic HAP emissions;
compliance using a control device, route the vent (2) documenting the percent reduction of
demonstration to stream through a closed-vent system to total organic HAP emissions using the
demonstrate initial control device; and pertinent data from the material balance;
compliance. iii. comply with the work practice (3) if using extended cookout to comply,
standard for closed-vent systems. monitoring reactor charges and keeping
records to show that extended cookout was
employed;
(4) complying with the continuous
compliance requirements for closed-vent
systems.
4. closed-loop systems................ each existing or new operate and maintain a closed-loop system. keeping a record certifying that a closed-
cellulose ether loop system is in use for cellulose ether
operation. operations.
5. each carbon disulfide unloading and a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled carbon disulfide (1) keeping a record documenting the 83
storage operation. viscose process emissions by at least 83 percent based on percent reduction in carbon disulfide
affected source. a 6-month rolling average if you use an emissions; and
alternative control technique not listed (2) if venting to a control device to
in this table for carbon disulfide reduce emissions, complying with the
unloading and storage operations; if continuous compliance requirements for
using a control device to reduce closed-vent systems;
emissions, route emissions through a
closed-vent system to the control device;
and comply with the work practice
standard for closed-vent systems;
........................ ii. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide (1) maintaining a material balance that
emissions by at least 0.14 percent from includes the pertinent data used to
viscose process vents based on a 6-month determine the percent reduction of total
rolling average; for each vent stream sulfide emissions;
that you control using a control device, (2) documenting the percent reduction of
route the vent stream through a closed- total sulfide emissions using the
vent system to the control device; and pertinent data from the material balance;
comply with the work practice standard and
for closed-vent systems; (3) complying with the continuous
compliance requirements for closed-vent
systems;
........................ iii. install a nitrogen unloading and Keeping a record certifying that a
storage system; or nitrogen unloading and storage system is
in use; or
........................ iv. install a nitrogen unloading system; (1) keeping a record certifying that a
reduce total uncontrolled sulfide nitrogen unloading system is in use;
emissions by at least 0.045 percent from (2) maintaining a material balance that
viscose process vents based on a 6-month includes the pertinent data used to
rolling average; for each vent stream determine the percent reduction of total
that you control using a control device, sulfide emissions;
route the vent stream through a closed- (3) documenting the percent reduction of
vent system to the control device; and total sulfide emissions using the
comply with the work practice standard pertinent data from the material balance;
for closed-vent systems. and
(4) complying with the continuous
compliance requirements for closed-vent
systems.
6. each toluene storage vessel........ a. each existing or new i. reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions (1) maintaining a material balance that
cellophane operation. by at least 95 percent based on a 6-month includes the pertinent data used to
rolling average; determine the percent reduction of
ii. if using a control device to reduce toluene emissions;
emissions, route the emissions through a (2) documenting the percent reduction of
closed-vent system to the control device; toluene emissions using the pertinent
and data from the material balance; and
iii. comply with the work practice (3) if venting to a control device to
standard for closed vent systems. reduce emissions, complying with the
continuous compliance requirements for
closed-vent systems.
7. equipment leaks.................... a. each existing or new i. applicable equipment leak standards of complying with the applicable equipment
cellulose ether Sec. Sec. 63.162 through 63.179; or leak continuous compliance provisions of
operation. ii. applicable equipment leak standards of Sec. Sec. 63.162 through 63.179; or
Sec. Sec. 63.1021 through 63.1037. complying with the applicable equipment
leak continuous compliance provisions of
Sec. Sec. 63.1021 through 63.1037.
[[Page 40014]]
8. all sources of wastewater emissions each existing or new applicable wastewater provisions of Sec. complying with the applicable wastewater
cellulose either 63.105 and Sec. Sec. 63.132 through continuous compliance provisions of Sec.
operation. 63.140. Sec. 63.105, 63.143, and 63.148.
9. liquid streams in open systems..... each existing or new comply with the applicable provisions of conducting inspections, repairing
cellulose ether Sec. 63.149, except that references to failures, documenting delay of repair,
operation. ``chemical manufacturing process unit'' and maintaining records of failures and
mean ``cellulose ether process unit'' for corrective actions according to Sec.
the purposes of this subpart. Sec. 63.133 through 63.137.
10. closed-vent system used to route each existing or new conduct annual inspections, repair leaks, conducting the inspections, repairing
emissions to a control device. affected source. maintain records as specified in Sec. leaks, and maintaining records according
63.148. to Sec. 63.148.
11. closed-vent system containing a a. each existing or new i. install, calibrate, maintain, and (1) taking readings from the flow
bypass line that could divert a vent affected source. operate a flow indicator as specified in indicator at least once every 15 minutes;
stream away from a control device, Sec. 63.148(f)(1); or (2) maintaining hourly records of flow
except for equipment needed for indicator operation and detection of any
safety purposes (described in Sec. diversion during the hour, and
63.148(f)(3). (3) recording all periods when the vent
stream is diverted from the control
stream or the flow indicator is not
operating; or
ii. secure the bypass line valve in the (1) maintaining a record of the monthly
closed position with a car-seal or lock- visual inspection of the seal or closure
and-key type configuration and inspect mechanism for the bypass line; and
the seal or mechanism at least once per (2) recording all periods when the seal
month as specified in Sec. mechanism is broken, the bypass line
63.148(f)(2). valve position has changed, or the key
for a lock-and-key type lock has been
checked out.
12. heat exchanger system that cools a. each existing or new i. monitor and repair the heat exchanger (1) monitoring for HAP compounds, other
process equipment or materials in the affected source. system according to Sec. 63.104(a) substances, or surrogate indicators at
process unit. through (e), except that references to the frequency specified in Sec.
``chemical manufacturing process unit'' 63.104(b) or (c);
mean ``cellulose food casing, rayon, (2) repairing leaks within the time period
cellulosic sponge, cellophane, or specified in Sec. 63.104(d)(1);
cellulose ether process unit'' for the (3) confirming that the repair is
purposes of this subpart. successful as specified in Sec.
63.104(d)(2);
(4) following the procedures in Sec.
63.104(e) if you implement delay of
repair; and
(5) recording the results of inspections
and repair according to Sec.
63.104(f)(1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Table 6 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Operating Limits
As required in Sec. 63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the appropriate operating limits according to the
requirements in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following control technique . for the following operating you must demonstrate continuous compliance
. . limit . . . by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser......................... maintain the daily average collecting the condenser outlet gas or
condenser outlet gas or condensed liquid temperature data
condensed liquid temperature according to Sec. 63.5545; reducing the
no higher than the value condenser outlet gas temperature data to
established during the daily averages; and maintaining the daily
compliance demonstration. average condenser outlet gas or condensed
liquid temperature no higher than the
value established during the compliance
demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer.................. a. for normal operations, collecting the thermal oxidizer firebox
maintain the daily average temperature data according to Sec.
thermal oxidizer firebox 63.5545; reducing the thermal oxidizer
temperature no lower than firebox temperature data to daily
the value established during averages; and maintaining the daily
the compliance demonstration. average thermal oxidizer firebox
temperature no lower than the value
established during the compliance
demonstration.
b. for periods of startup, collecting the appropriate, site-specific
maintain documentation data needed to demonstrate that the
demonstrating that the oxidizer was properly operating prior to
oxidizer was properly emission unit start up; and excluding
operating (e.g., firebox firebox temperature from the daily
temperature had reached the averages during emission unit startup.
setpoint temperature) prior
to emission unit startup..
[[Page 40015]]
3. water scrubber.................... a. for periods of normal collecting the scrubber pressure drop and
operation, maintain the scrubber liquid flow rate data according
daily average scrubber to Sec. 63.5545; reducing the scrubber
pressure drop and scrubber parameter data to daily averages; and
liquid flow rate within the maintaining the daily scrubber parameter
range of values established values within the range of values
during the compliance established during the compliance
demonstration. demonstration.
b. for periods of startup and collecting the appropriate, site-specific
shutdown, maintain data needed to demonstrate that the
documentation to confirm scrubber was operating properly during
that the scrubber is emission unit startup and emission unit
operating properly prior to shutdown; and excluding parameters from
emission unit startup and the daily average calculations.
continues to operate
properly until emission unit
shutdown is complete.
Appropriate startup and
shutdown operating
parameters may be based on
equipment design,
manufacturer's
recommendations, or other
site-specific operating
values established for
normal operating periods..
4. caustic scrubber.................. a. for periods of normal collecting the scrubber pressure drop,
operation, maintain the scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber
daily average scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity
pressure drop, scrubber data according to Sec. 63.5545;
liquid flow rate, and reducing the scrubber parameter data to
scrubber liquid pH, daily averages; and maintaining the daily
conductivity, or alkalinity scrubber parameter values within the
within the range of values range of values established during the
established during the compliance demonstration.
compliance demonstration.
b. for periods of startup and collecting the appropriate, site-specific
shutdown, maintain data needed to demonstrate that the
documentation to confirm scrubber was operating properly during
that the scrubber is emission unit startup and emission unit
operating properly prior to shutdown; and excluding parameters from
emission unit startup and the daily average calculations.
continues to operate
properly until emission unit
shutdown is complete.
Appropriate startup and
shutdown operating
parameters may be based on
equipment design,
manufacturer's
recommendations, or other
site-specific operating
values established for
normal operating periods..
5. flare............................. maintain the presence of a collecting the pilot flame data according
pilot flame. to Sec. 63.5545; and maintaining the
presence of the pilot flame.
6. biofilter......................... maintain the daily average collecting the biofilter inlet gas
biofilter inlet gas temperature, biofilter effluent pH or
temperature, biofilter conductivity, and biofilter pressure drop
effluent pH or conductivity, data according to Sec. 63.5545;
and pressure drop within the reducing the biofilter parameter data to
values established during daily averages; and maintaining the daily
the compliance demonstration. biofilter parameter values within the
values established during the compliance
demonstration.
7. carbon absorber................... maintain the regeneration collecting the data on regeneration
frequency, total frequency, total regeneration stream mass
regeneration stream mass or or volumetric flow during carbon bed
volumetric flow during regeneration and temperature of the
carbon bed regeneration and carbon bed after regeneration (and within
temperature of the carbon 15 minutes of completing any cooling
bed after regeneration (and cycle(s)) for each regeneration cycle
within 15 minutes of according to Sec. 63.5545; and
completing any cooling maintaining carbon absorber parameter
cycle(s)) for each values for each regeneration cycle within
regeneration cycle within the values established during the
the values established compliance demonstration.
during the compliance
demonstration.
8. oil absorber...................... maintain the daily average collecting the absorption liquid flow,
absorption liquid flow, absorption liquid temperature, and steam
absorption liquid flow data according to Sec. 63.5545;
temperature, and steam flow reducing the oil absorber parameter data
within the values to daily averages; and maintaining the
established during the daily oil absorber parameter values
compliance demonstration. within the values established during the
compliance demonstration.
9. any of the control techniques if using a CEMS, maintain the collecting CEMS emissions data at the
specified in this table. daily average control inlet and outlet of each control device
efficiency for each control according to Sec. 63.5545; determining
device no lower than the the control efficiency values for each
value established during the control device using the inlet and outlet
compliance demonstration. CEMS emissions data; reducing the control
efficiency values for each control device
to daily averages; and maintaining the
daily average control efficiency for each
control device no lower than the value
established during the compliance
demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
17. Table 7 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Notifications
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5490(c)(4), 63.5530(c), 63.5575, and
63.5595(b), you must submit the appropriate notifications specified in
the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you . . . then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. are required to conduct a submit a notification of intent to
performance test. conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled to
begin, as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.7(b)(1) and 63.9(e).
[[Page 40016]]
2. are required to conduct a CMS submit a notification of intent to
performance evaluation. conduct a CMS performance evaluation
at least 60 calendar days before the
CMS performance evaluation is
scheduled to begin, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.8(e)(2) and 63.9(g).
3. wish to use an alternative submit a request to use alternative
monitoring method. monitoring method no later than the
notification of the initial
performance test or CMS performance
evaluation or 60 days prior to any
other initial compliance
demonstration, as specified in Sec.
63.8(f)(4).
4. start up your affected source submit an initial notification no
before June 11, 2002. later than 120 days after June 11,
2002, as specified in Sec.
63.9(b)(2).
5. start up your new or submit an initial notification no
reconstructed source on or after later than 120 days after you become
June 11, 2002. subject to this subpart, as
specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3).
6. cannot comply with the submit a request for extension of
relevant standard by the compliance no later than 120 days
applicable compliance date. before the compliance date, as
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.9(c)
and 63.6(i)(4).
7. are subject to special notify the Administrator of your
requirements as specified in compliance obligations no later than
Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and (4). the initial notification dates
established in Sec. 63.9(b) for
new sources not subject to the
special provisions, as specified in
Sec. 63.9(d).
8. are required to conduct notify the Administrator of the
visible emission observations to anticipated date for conducting the
determine the compliance of observations specified in Sec.
flares as specified in Sec. 63.6(h)(5), as specified in Sec.
63.11(b)(4). Sec. 63.6(h)(4) and 63.9(f).
9. are required to conduct a a. submit a Notification of
performance test or other Compliance Status Report, as
initial compliance demonstration specified in Sec. 63.9(h);
as specified in Table 3 to this b. submit the Notification of
subpart. Compliance Status Report, including
the performance test, CEMS
performance evaluation, and any
other initial compliance
demonstration results within 240
calendar days following the
compliance date specified in Sec.
63.5495; and
c. for sources which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or
before September 9, 2019, beginning
on December 29, 2020, submit all
subsequent Notifications of
Compliance Status following the
procedure specified in Sec.
63.5580(g), (j), and (k). For
sources which construction or
reconstruction commenced after
September 9, 2019, on July 2, 2020,
or immediately upon startup,
whichever is later, submit all
subsequent Notifications of
Compliance Status following the
procedure specified in Sec.
63.5580(g), (j), and (k).
10. comply with the equipment comply with the notification
leak requirements of subpart H requirements specified in Sec.
of this part for existing or new 63.182(a)(1) and (2), (b), and
cellulose ether affected sources. (c)(1) through (3) for equipment
leaks, with the Notification of
Compliance Status Reports required
in subpart H included in the
Notification of Compliance Status
Report required in this subpart.
11. comply with the equipment comply with the notification
leak requirements of subpart UU requirements specified in Sec.
of this part for existing or new 63.1039(a) for equipment leaks, with
cellulose ether affected sources. the Notification Compliance Status
Reports required in subpart UU of
this part included in the
Notification of Compliance Status
Report required in this subpart.
12. comply with the wastewater comply with the notification
requirements of subparts F and G requirements specified in Sec. Sec.
of this part for existing or new 63.146(a) and (b), 63.151, and
cellulose ether affected sources. 63.152(a)(1) through (3) and (b)(1)
through (5) for wastewater, with the
Notification of Compliance Status
Reports required in subpart G of
this part included in the
Notification of Compliance Status
Report required in this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
18. Table 8 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Reporting Requirements
As required in Sec. 63.5580, you must submit the appropriate
reports specified in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit a compliance report, which and you must submit the
must contain the following information . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. if there are no deviations from any semiannually as specified
emission limit, operating limit, or work in Sec. 63.5580(b);
practice standard during the reporting beginning on December 29,
period, then the report must contain the 2020, submit all
information specified in Sec. 63.5580(c); subsequent reports
following the procedure
specified in Sec.
63.5580(g).
2. if there were no periods during which the
CMS was out-of-control, then the report
must contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.5580(c)(6);
3. if there is a deviation from any emission
limit, operating limit, or work practice
standard during the reporting period, then
the report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.5580(c) and (d);
4. if there were periods during which the
CMS was out-of-control, then the report
must contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.5580(e);
[[Page 40017]]
5. for sources which commenced construction
or reconstruction on or before September 9,
2019, if prior to December 29, 2020, you
had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the reporting period and you took
actions consistent with your SSM plan, then
the report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i);
6. for sources which commenced construction
or reconstruction on or before September 9,
2019, if prior to December 29, 2020, you
had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the reporting period and you took
actions that are not consistent with your
SSM plan, then the report must contain the
information specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii);
7. the report must contain any change in
information already provided, as specified
in Sec. 63.9(j);
8. for cellulose ether affected sources
complying with the equipment leak
requirements of subpart H of this part, the
report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.182(a)(3) and (6)
and (d)(2) through (4);
9. for cellulose ether affected sources
complying with the equipment leak
requirements of subpart UU of this part,
the report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.1039(b);
10. for cellulose ether affected sources
complying with the wastewater requirements
of subparts F and G of this part, the
report must contain the information
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.146(c) through
(e) and 63.152(a)(4) and (5) and (c)
through (e);
11. for affected sources complying with the
closed-vent system provisions in Sec.
63.148, the report must contain the
information specified in Sec.
63.148(j)(1);
12. for affected sources complying with the
bypass line provisions in Sec. 63.148(f),
the report must contain the information
specified in Sec. 63.148(j)(2) and (3);
13. for affected sources invoking the delay
of repair provisions in Sec. 63.104(e)
for heat exchanger systems, the next
compliance report must contain the
information in Sec. 63.104(f)(2)(i)
through (iv); if the leak remains
unrepaired, the information must also be
submitted in each subsequent compliance
report until the repair of the leak is
reported; and
14. for storage vessels subject to the
emission limits and work practice standards
in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU, the report must
contain the periods of planned routine
maintenance during which the control device
does not comply with the emission limits or
work practice standards in Table 1 to this
subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
19. Table 9 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Recordkeeping Requirements
As required in Sec. 63.5585, you must keep the appropriate records
specified in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate . . . then you must keep . . . and the record(s) must contain . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. an existing or new affected source.. a copy of each all documentation supporting any Initial
notification and report Notification or Notification of Compliance
that you submitted to Status Report that you submitted,
comply with this subpart. according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(xiv), and any compliance
report required under this subpart.
2. an existing or new affected source a. the records in Sec. i. SSM plan;
that commenced construction or 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through ii. when actions taken during a startup,
reconstruction on or before September (iv) related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction are consistent
9, 2019. shutdown, and malfunction with the procedures specified in the SSM
prior to December 30, plan, records demonstrating that the
2020. procedures specified in the plan were
followed;
iii. records of the occurrence and duration
of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction;
and
iv. when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not
consistent with the procedures specified
in the SSM plan, records of the actions
taken for that event.
[[Page 40018]]
b. records related to i. record the date, time, and duration of
startup and shutdown, each startup and/or shutdown period,
failures to meet the including the periods when the affected
standard, and actions source was subject to the alternative
taken to minimize operating parameters applicable to startup
emissions after December and shutdown;
29, 2020. ii. in the event that an affected unit
fails to meet an applicable standard,
record the number of failures. For each
failure, record the date, time and
duration of each failure;
iii. for each failure to meet an applicable
standard, record and retain a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate
of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions; and
iv. record actions taken to minimize
emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.5515(b), and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
3. a new or reconstructed affected a. records related to i. record the date, time, and duration of
source that commenced construction or startup and shutdown, each startup and/or shutdown period,
reconstruction after September 9, 2019. failures to meet the including the periods when the affected
standard, and actions source was subject to alternative
taken to minimize operating parameters applicable to startup
emissions. and shutdown;
ii. in the event that an affected unit
fails to meet an applicable standard,
record the number of failures. For each
failure, record the date, time and
duration of each failure;
iii. for each failure to meet an applicable
standard, record and retain a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate
of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions; and
iv. record actions taken to minimize
emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.5515(b), and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
4. an existing or new affected source.. a. a site-specific i. information regarding the installation
monitoring plan. of the CMS sampling source probe or other
interface at a measurement location
relative to each affected process unit
such that the measurement is
representative of control of the exhaust
emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the
last control device);
ii. performance and equipment
specifications for the sample interface,
the pollutant concentration or parametric
signal analyzer, and the data collection
and reduction system;
iii. performance evaluation procedures and
acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations);
iv. ongoing operation and maintenance
procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(3)
and (4)(ii), 63.5515(b), and
63.5580(c)(6);
v. ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. 63.8(d)(2); and
vi. ongoing recordkeeping and reporting
procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-
(6), (c)(9)-(14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i)
and 63.5585.
5. an existing or new affected source.. records of performance all results of performance tests, CEMS
tests and CEMS performance evaluations, and any other
performance evaluations, initial compliance demonstrations,
as required in Sec. including analysis of samples,
63.10(b)(2)(viii) and any determination of emissions, and raw data.
other initial compliance
demonstrations.
6. an existing or new affected source.. a. records for each CEMS.. i. records described in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi);
ii. previous (superseded) versions of the
performance evaluation plan, with the
program of corrective action included in
the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2);
iii. request for alternatives to relative
accuracy test for CEMS as required in Sec.
63.8(f)(6)(i);
iv. records of the date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and whether
the deviation occurred during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction or
during another period; and
v. records required in Table 6 to Subpart
UUUU to show continuous compliance with
the operating limit.
7. an existing or new affected source.. a. records for each CPMS.. i. records required in Table 6 to Subpart
UUUU to show continuous compliance with
each operating limit that applies to you;
and
ii. results of each CPMS calibration,
validation check, and inspection required
by Sec. 63.5545(b)(4).
8. an existing or new cellulose ether records of closed-loop records certifying that a closed-loop
affected ether source. systems. system is in use for cellulose ether
operations.
9. an existing or new viscose process records of nitrogen records certifying that a nitrogen
affected source. unloading and storage unloading and storage systems or nitrogen
systems or nitrogen unloading system is in use.
unloading systems.
[[Page 40019]]
10. an existing or new viscose process records of material all pertinent data from the material
affected source. balances. balances used to estimate the 6-month
rolling average percent reduction in HAP
emissions.
11. an existing or new viscose process records of calculations... documenting the percent reduction in HAP
affected source. emissions using pertinent data from the
material balances.
12. an existing or new cellulose ether a. extended cookout i. the amount of HAP charged to the
affected source. records. reactor;
ii. the grade of product produced;
iii. the calculated amount of HAP remaining
before extended cookout; and
iv. information showing that extended
cookout was employed.
13. an existing or new cellulose ether a. equipment leak records. i. the records specified in Sec. 63.181
affected source. for equipment leaks; or
ii. the records specified in 63.1038 for
equipment leaks.
14. an existing or new cellulose ether wastewater records........ the records specified in Sec. Sec.
affected source. 63.105, 63.147, and 63.152(f) and (g) for
wastewater.
15. an existing or new affected source. closed-vent system records the records specified in Sec. 63.148(i).
16. an existing or new affected source. a. bypass line records.... i. hourly records of flow indicator
operation and detection of any diversion
during the hour and records of all periods
when the vent stream is diverted from the
control stream or the flow indicator is
not operating; or
ii. the records of the monthly visual
inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism and of all periods when the seal
mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve
position has changed, or the key for a
lock-and-key type lock has been checked
out and records of any car-seal that has
broken.
17. an existing or new affected source. heat exchanger system records of the results of inspections and
records. repair according to source Sec.
63.104(f)(1).
18. an existing or new affected source. control device maintenance records of planned routine maintenance for
records. control devices used to comply with the
percent reduction emission limit for
storage vessels in Table 1 to Subpart
UUUU.
19. an existing or new affected source. safety device records..... a record of each time a safety device is
opened to avoid unsafe conditions
according to Sec. 63.5505(d).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Table 10 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart UUUU
As required in Sec. Sec. 63.5515(h) and 63.5600, you must comply
with the appropriate General Provisions requirements specified in the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to Subpart UUUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1....................... Applicability........ Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions, notifications.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions.......... Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Units and abbreviations Yes.
Abbreviations. for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4....................... Prohibited Activities Prohibited activities; Yes.
and Circumvention. compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5....................... Preconstruction Preconstruction review Yes.
Review and requirements of section
Notification 112(i)(1).
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Applicability........ General provisions apply Yes.
unless compliance
extension; general
provisions apply to area
sources that become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1) through (4)..... Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and effective date; 3 years
Reconstructed after effective date;
sources. upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction commences
for CAA section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................. Notification......... Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
New and major must comply with
Reconstructed Area major source and
Sources That Become standards immediately
Major. upon becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply when
they were an area source.
[[Page 40020]]
Sec. 63.6(c)(1) and (2)......... Compliance Dates for Comply according to date Yes.
Existing Sources. in subpart, which must be
no later than 3 years
after effective date; for
CAA section 112(f)
standards, comply within
90 days of effective date
unless compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3) and (4)......... [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area major must comply with
Sources That Become major source standards by
Major. date indicated in subpart
or by equivalent time
period (e.g., 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d).................... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).............. General Duty to You must operate and No, for new or
Minimize Emissions. maintain affected source reconstructed sources
in a manner consistent which commenced
with safety and good air construction or
pollution control reconstruction after
practices for minimizing September 9, 2019. For
emissions. all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter. See 40
CFR 63.5515(b) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to You must correct No, for new or
Correct Malfunctions malfunctions as soon as reconstructed sources
ASAP. practicable after their which commenced
occurrence. construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ Operation and Operation and maintenance Yes.
Maintenance requirements are
Requirements. enforceable independent
of emissions limitations
or other requirements in
relevant standards.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. SSM Plan............. Requirement for SSM and No, for new or
SSM plan; content of SSM reconstructed sources
plan. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter. See 40
CFR 63.5515(c).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. SSM Exemption........ You must comply with No, see 40 CFR
emission standards at all 63.5515(a).
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3)......... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance/Finding operation and maintenance
of Compliance. plans, records,
inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1) through (3)..... Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................. SSM Exemption........ You must comply with No, see CFR 63.5515(a).
opacity and visible
emission standards at all
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2) through (9)..... Opacity and Visible Requirements for opacity Yes, but only for flares
Emission (VE) and visible emission for which EPA Method 22
Standards. limits. observations are
required under Sec.
63.11(b).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1) through (16).... Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria Yes.
for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential President may exempt Yes.
Compliance Exemption. source category from
requirement to comply
with subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1) and (2)......... Performance Test Dates for conducting Yes.
Dates. initial performance test;
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations; must
conduct 180 days after
first subject to subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................. Section 114 Authority Administrator may require Yes.
a performance test under
CAA section 114 at any
time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)................. Notification of Must notify Administrator Yes.
Performance Test. 60 days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)................. Notification of If rescheduling a Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date of
rescheduled test.
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality Assurance and Requirement to submit site- No.
Test Plan. specific test plan 60
days before the test or
on date Administrator
agrees with; test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal
and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Testing Facilities... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Performance Testing.. Performance tests must be No, see Sec. 63.5535
conducted under and Table 4.
representative
conditions; cannot
conduct performance tests
during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
[[Page 40021]]
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)................. Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes.
Conducting this subpart and EPA test
Performance Tests. methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)................. Test Run Duration.... Must have three test runs Yes.
of at least 1 hour each;
compliance is based on
arithmetic mean of three
runs; conditions when
data from an additional
test run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).................... Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes.
Analysis. performance test report;
must submit performance
test data 60 days after
end of test with the
Notification of
Compliance Status Report;
keep data for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver of Tests...... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................. Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................. Performance Performance specifications Yes.
Specifications. in appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................. [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Monitoring with Unless your subpart says Yes.
Flares. otherwise, the
requirements for flares
in Sec. 63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)................. Monitoring........... Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2) and (3)......... Multiple Effluents Specific requirements for Yes.
and Multiple installing monitoring
Monitoring Systems. systems; must install on
each effluent before it
is combined and before it
is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise; if more than
one monitoring system on
an emission point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless
one monitoring system is
a backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1) and (c)(1)(i)... General Duty to Maintain monitoring system No, for new or
Minimize Emissions in a manner consistent reconstructed sources
and CMS Operation. with good air pollution which commenced
control practices. construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter. See 40
CFR 63.5515(b).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. Parts for Routine Keep parts for routine Yes.
Repairs. repairs readily available.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirements to Develop a written SSM plan No, for new or
develop SSM Plan for for CMS. reconstructed sources
CMS. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter. See 40
CFR 63.5515(c).
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) and (3)......... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission
of parameter
measurements; must verify
operational status before
or at performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. CMS Requirements..... CMS must be operating No. Replaced with
except during breakdown, language in Sec.
out-of control, repair, 63.5560.
maintenance, and high-
level calibration drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii)..... CMS Requirements..... Continuous opacity Yes, except that Sec.
monitoring systems (COMS) 63.8(c)(4)(i) does not
must have a minimum of apply because subpart
one cycle of sampling and UUUU does not require
analysis for each COMS.
successive 10-second
period and one cycle of
data recording for each
successive 6-minute
period; CEMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of
operation for each
successive 15-minute
period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures... No. Subpart UUUU does not
Procedures. require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................. CMS Requirements..... Zero and high level No. Replaced with
calibration check language in Sec.
requirements; out-of- 63.5545.
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8)......... CMS Requirements..... Out-of-control periods, No. Replaced with
including reporting. language in Sec.
63.5580(c)(6).
[[Page 40022]]
Sec. 63.8(d).................... CMS Quality Control.. Requirements for CMS No, except for
quality control, requirements in Sec.
including calibration, 63.8(d)(2).
etc.; must keep quality
control plan on record
for 5 years; keep old
versions for 5 years
after revisions; program
of correction action to
be included in plan
required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).
Sec. 63.8(e).................... CMS Performance Notification, performance Yes, except that Sec.
Evaluation. evaluation test plan, 63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not
reports. apply because subpart
UUUU does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1) through (5)..... Alternative Procedures for Yes, except that no site-
Monitoring Method. Administrator to approve specific test plan is
alternative monitoring. required. The request to
use an alternative
monitoring method must
be submitted with the
notification of
performance test or CEMS
performance evaluation
or 60 days prior to any
initial compliance
demonstration.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to Procedures for Yes.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve
Test. alternative relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1) through (4)..... Data Reduction....... COMS 6-minute averages No. Replaced with
calculated over at least language in Sec.
36 evenly spaced data 63.5545(e).
points; CEMS 1-hour
averages computed over at
least four equally spaced
data points; data that
cannot be used in average.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................. Data Reduction....... Data that cannot be used No. Replaced with
in computing averages for language in Sec.
CEMS and COMS. 63.5560(b).
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) through (5)..... Initial Notifications Submit notification Yes.
subject 120 days after
effective date;
notification of intent to
construct or reconstruct;
notification of
commencement of
construction or
reconstruction;
notification of startup;
contents of each.
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for Can request if cannot Yes.
Compliance Extension. comply by date or if
installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d).................... Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for New proposal and promulgation
Source. and want to comply 3
years after effective
date.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of VE or Notify Administrator 30 Yes, but only for flares
Opacity Test. days prior. for which EPA Method 22
observations are
required as part of a
flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.9(g).................... Additional Notification of Yes, except that Sec.
Notifications When performance evaluation; 63.9(g)(2) does not
Using CMS. notification using COMS apply because subpart
data; notification that UUUU does not require
exceeded criterion for COMS.
relative accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1) through (6)..... Notification of Contents; due 60 days Yes, except that Table 7
Compliance Status after end of performance to this subpart
Report. test or other compliance specifies the submittal
demonstration, except for date for the
opacity or VE, which are notification. The
due 30 days after; when contents of the
to submit to federal vs. notification will also
state authority. include the results of
EPA Method 22
observations required as
part of a flare
compliance assessment.
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. Administrator to approve
change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes, except that the
Information. after the change. notification must be
submitted as part of the
next semiannual
compliance report, as
specified in Table 8 to
this subpart.
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping and Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension;
when to submit to federal
vs. state authority;
procedures for owners of
more than one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ Recordkeeping and General requirements; keep Yes.
Reporting. all records readily
available; keep for 5
years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............. Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence and No, for new or
Occurrence and duration of each startup reconstructed sources
Duration of Startups or shutdown that causes which commenced
and Shutdowns. source to exceed emission construction or
limitation. reconstruction after
September 9, 2019.For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 29, 2020, and
No thereafter.
[[Page 40023]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............ Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence and No, see Table 9 for
Failures to Meet a duration of each recordkeeping of (1)
Standard. malfunction of operation date, time and duration;
or air pollution control (2) listing of affected
and monitoring equipment. source or equipment, and
an estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated pollutant
emitted over the
standard; and (3)
actions to minimize
emissions and correct
the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Maintenance Records.. Records of maintenance Yes.
performed on air
pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).... Actions Taken to Records of actions taken No, for new or
Minimize Emissions during SSM to minimize reconstructed sources
During SSM. emissions. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and CMS Records.......... Malfunctions, inoperative, Yes.
(xi). out-of-control;
calibration checks,
adjustments, maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii) through Records.............. Measurements to Yes, including results of
(ix). demonstrate compliance EPA Method 22
with emission limits; observations required as
performance test, part of a flare
performance evaluation, compliance assessment.
and opacity/VE
observation results;
measurements to determine
conditions of performance
tests and performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Records.............. Records when under waiver. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Records.............. Records when using Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... Records.............. All documentation Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of
Compliance Status Report.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Records.............. Applicability Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through (6), Records.............. Additional records for CMS Yes.
(9) through (14).
Sec. 63.10(c)(7) and (8)........ Records.............. Records of excess No. Replaced with
emissions and parameter language in Table 9 to
monitoring exceedances this subpart.
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............... Use of SSM Plan...... Use SSM plan to satisfy No, for new or
recordkeeping reconstructed sources
requirements for which commenced
identification of construction or
malfunction, correction reconstruction after
action taken, and nature September 9, 2019. For
of repairs to CMS. all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter. See 40
CFR 63.5515(c).
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Requirement to report..... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Report of Performance When to submit to federal Yes, except that Table 7
Test Results. or state authority. to this subpart
specifies the submittal
date for the
Notification of
Compliance Status
Report.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Reporting Opacity or What to report and when... Yes, but only for flares
VE Observations. for which EPA Method 22
observations are
required as part of a
flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress Reports..... Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)............. Periodic SSM Reports. Contents and submission of No, for new or
periodic SSM reports. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 30, 2020, and
No thereafter. See Sec.
63.5580(c)(4) and Table
8 for malfunction
reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)............ Immediate SSM Reports Contents and submission of No, for new or
immediate SSM reports. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 9, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes before
December 29, 2020,
except that the
immediate SSM report
must be submitted as
part of the next
semiannual compliance
report, as specified in
Table 8 to this subpart,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (2)........ Additional CMS Must report results for Yes, except that Sec.
Reports. each CEMS on a unit; 63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not
written copy of apply because subpart
performance evaluation; UUUU does not require
three copies of COMS COMS.
performance evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i) through Reports.............. Schedule for reporting No. Replaced with
(iii). excess emissions and language in Sec.
parameter monitor 63.5580.
exceedance (now defined
as deviations).
[[Page 40024]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)............ Excess Emissions Requirement to revert to No. Replaced with
Reports. quarterly submission if language in Sec.
there is an excess 63.5580.
emissions and parameter
monitor exceedance (now
defined as deviations);
provision to request
semiannual reporting
after compliance for 1
year; submit report by
30th day following end of
quarter or calendar half;
if there has not been an
exceedance or excess
emission (now defined as
deviations), report
contents is a statement
that there have been no
deviations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v)............. Excess Emissions Must submit report No. Replaced with
Reports. containing all of the language in Sec.
information in Sec. 63.5580.
63.10(c)(5) through (13),
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi) through Excess Emissions Requirements for reporting No. Replaced with
(viii). Report and Summary excess emissions for CMS language in Sec.
Report. (now called deviations); 63.5580.
requires all of the
information in Sec.
63.10(c)(5) through (13),
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and (8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ Reporting COMS Data.. Must submit COMS data with No. Subpart UUUU does not
performance test data. require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping or Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11...................... Control and Work Requirements for flares Yes.
Practice and alternative work
Requirements. practice for equipment
leaks.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and State authority to enforce Yes.
Delegations. standards.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses............ Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporations by Test methods incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information and information.
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16...................... Performance Track Requirements for Yes.
Provisions. Performance Track member
facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-05901 Filed 7-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P