National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing Industry, 22566-22602 [2011-8168]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22566
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600; FRL–9291–3]
RIN 2060–AO91
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations;
Pharmaceuticals Production; and the
Printing and Publishing Industry
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP and the Group I
Polymers and Resins NESHAP, EPA is
finalizing emission standards to address
certain emission sources not previously
regulated under the NESHAP. EPA is
also finalizing changes to the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP to
correct an editorial error. For each of the
four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing
revisions to the regulatory provisions
related to emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and
promulgating provisions addressing
electronic submission of emission test
results.
This final action is effective on
April 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet, and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
DATES:
EPA is taking final action for
four national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) that
regulate 12 industrial source categories
evaluated in our risk and technology
review. The four NESHAP include:
National Emissions Standards for Group
I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber
Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber
Production, HypalonTM Production,
Neoprene Production, Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber Production, Polybutadiene
Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production); Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations;
Pharmaceuticals Production; and The
Printing and Publishing Industry.
For some source categories, EPA is
finalizing our decisions concerning the
residual risk and technology reviews.
SUMMARY:
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 Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center is (202) 566–1742.
For
questions about this final action, contact
Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division,
Refining and Chemicals Group (E143–
01), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
4516; fax number: (919) 685–3219; and
e-mail address: kissell.mary@epa.gov.
For additional contact information, see
the following SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For
specific information regarding the
modeling methodology, contact Ms.
Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Air
Toxics Assessment Group (C539–02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–5499; fax
number: (919) 541–0840; and e-mail
address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of
these four NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact the appropriate person
listed in Table 1 to this preamble.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION
NESHAP for:
OECA contact 1
Group I Polymers and Resins ............................
Marcia
Mia
(202)
mia.marcia@epa.gov.
Maria
Malave,
(202)
malave.maria@epa.gov.
Marcia
Mia,
(202)
mia.marcia@epa.gov.
Rafael
Sanchez,
(202)
sanchez.rafael@epa.gov.
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations ...........
Pharmaceuticals Production ...............................
The Printing and Publishing Industry .................
1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
2
OAQPS contact 2
564–7042,
564–7027,
564–7042,
564–7028,
Nick
Parsons,
(919)
541–5372,
parsons.nick@epa.gov.
Steve
Shedd,
(919)
541–5397,
shedd.steve@epa.gov.
Nick
Parsons,
(919)
541–5372,
parsons.nick@epa.gov.
David
Salman,
(919)
541–5402,
salman.dave@epa.gov.
OECA stands for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
OAQPS stands for EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Background Information Document.
On October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65068), EPA
proposed revisions to six NESHAP that
regulate 16 industrial source categories
evaluated in our risk and technology
review. The six NESHAP and industrial
source categories are: National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Group
I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Pharmaceuticals Production; The
Printing and Publishing Industry; and
Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions
for four of these NESHAP—Group I
Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations;
Pharmaceuticals Production; and The
Printing and Publishing Industry. We
will finalize our decisions for the Hard
and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Anodizing Tanks NESHAP and the Steel
Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration in a
future rulemaking.1 A summary of the
public comments on the proposal, and
EPA’s responses to the comments, is
1 We addressed two additional source categories
as part of this proposed rule, Hard and Decorative
Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks and Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration, and we plan
to take final action on those two source categories
in June 2011.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22567
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0600.
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in the preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rules
A. What are the final rule amendments for
the Group I Polymers and Resins source
categories?
B. What are the final rule amendments for
the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations (MTVLO) source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments for
the Pharmaceuticals Production source
category?
D. What are the final rule amendments for
the Printing and Publishing Industry
source category?
E. What are the requirements during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
F. What are the requirements for
submission of emissions test results to
EPA?
G. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since
Proposal
A. What changes did we make to the risk
assessments for these source categories
since proposal?
B. What changes did we make to the Group
I Polymers and Resins MACT since
proposal?
C. What changes did we make to the
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
MACT since proposal?
V. Summary of Significant Comments and
Responses
A. EPA’s Authority Under CAA Section
112
B. Group I Polymers and Resins
C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
(SSM) Requirements
VI. Impacts of the Final Rules
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
A red-line version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes
in this action is available in the docket.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action include:
TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION
NAICS 1 code
NESHAP and source category
Group I Polymers and Resins:
Butyl Rubber Production ..................................................................................................................................
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production ...........................................................................................................
Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production ...........................................................................................................
HypalonTM Production ......................................................................................................................................
Neoprene Production ........................................................................................................................................
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production ................................................................................................................
Polybutadiene Rubber Production ....................................................................................................................
Polysulfide Rubber Production .........................................................................................................................
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production ...........................................................................................
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations ................................................................................................................
Pharmaceuticals Production ....................................................................................................................................
The Printing and Publishing Industry ......................................................................................................................
1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
2
325212
325212
325212
325212
325212
325212
325212
325212
325212
4883
3254
32311
MACT 2 code
1307
1311
1313
1315
1320
1321
1325
1332
1339
0603
1201
0714
North American Industry Classification System.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
Table 2 is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the
source categories listed. To determine
whether your facility would be affected,
you should examine the applicability
criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If
you have any questions regarding the
applicability of any of these NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person
listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
World Wide Web (www) through the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the final
action will be posted on the TTN’s
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed and promulgated rules at the
following address: https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Additional information is available on
the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) Web page at https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This
information includes source category
descriptions and detailed emissions and
other data that were used as inputs to
the risk assessments.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), 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 by June 20, 2011.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final
rules may not be challenged separately
in any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly 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
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22568
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
section also provides a mechanism for
us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to EPA
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 to
us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the
first stage, after EPA has identified
categories of sources emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in section 112(b)
of the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us
to promulgate 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 technology-based standards must
reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements,
and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts), and are
commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards.
For MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
floor requirements, and 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 that is
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 bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT,
we must also consider control options
that are more stringent than the floor,
under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may
establish standards more stringent than
the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. In promulgating MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs
us to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems,
or techniques 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; and/or are design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standards.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, we undertake two different
analyses, as required by the CAA:
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA calls for us
to review these technology-based
standards, and to revise them ‘‘as
necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years; and
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology standards, CAA section
112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to
public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and to 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.
In doing so, EPA may adopt standards
equal to existing MACT standards if
EPA determines that the existing
standards are sufficiently protective.
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C.
Cir. 2008).
On October 21, 2010, EPA published
a proposed rule and supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register for these four NESHAP
that took into consideration the RTR
analyses. For these NESHAP—Group I
Polymers and Resins, Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and The
Printing and Publishing Industry—this
action provides EPA’s final
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112. In
addition, we are promulgating
amendments as follows:
• For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP and Group I
Polymers and Resins NESHAP, pursuant
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), EPA
is finalizing revisions to address certain
emission sources not currently regulated
under the standards.
• For the Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP, EPA is finalizing changes to
correct an editorial error.
• For each of the four NESHAP, EPA
is finalizing revisions to requirements in
each NESHAP related to emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM).
• For each of the four NESHAP, EPA
is finalizing revisions to requirements in
each NESHAP related to electronic
reporting.
III. Summary of the Final Rules
A. What are the final rule amendments
for the Group I Polymers and Resins
source categories?
The National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins were
promulgated on September 5, 1996
(62 FR 46925), and codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart U. The Group I
Polymers and Resins MACT standards
apply to major sources and regulate
HAP emissions from nine source
categories: Butyl Rubber Production,
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production,
Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production,
HypalonTM Production, Neoprene
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
(NBR) Production, Polybutadiene
Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production.
The Group I Polymers and Resins
MACT standards regulate HAP
emissions resulting from the production
of elastomers (i.e., synthetic rubber). An
elastomer is a synthetic polymeric
material that can stretch to at least twice
its original length and then return
rapidly to approximately its original
length when released. Elastomers are
produced via a polymerization/
copolymerization process, in which
monomers undergo intermolecular
chemical bond formation to form a very
large polymer molecule. Generally, the
production of elastomers entails four
processes: (1) Raw material (i.e.,
solvent) storage and refining; (2)
polymer formation in a reactor (either
via the solution process, where
monomers are dissolved in an organic
solvent, or the emulsion process, where
monomers are dispersed in water using
a soap solution); (3) stripping and
material recovery; and (4) finishing (i.e.,
blending, aging, coagulation, washing,
and drying).
Sources of HAP emissions from
elastomers production include raw
material storage vessels, front-end
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
process vents, back-end process
operations, wastewater operations, and
equipment leaks. The ‘‘front-end’’
processes include pre-polymerization,
reaction, stripping, and material
recovery operations; and the ‘‘back-end’’
process includes all operations after
stripping (predominantly drying and
finishing). Typical control devices used
to reduce organic HAP emissions from
front-end process vents include flares,
incinerators, absorbers, carbon
adsorbers, and condensers. Emissions
from storage vessels are controlled by
floating roofs or by routing them to a
control device.
While emissions from back-end
process operations can be controlled
with control devices such as
incinerators, the most common method
of reducing these emissions is the
pollution prevention method of
reducing the amount of residual HAP
that is contained in the raw product
going to the back-end operations.
Emissions from wastewater are
controlled by a variety of methods,
including equipment modifications
(e.g., fixed roofs on storage vessels and
oil water separators; covers on surface
impoundments, containers, and drain
systems), treatment to remove the HAP
(steam stripping, biological treatment),
control devices, and work practices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Emissions from equipment leaks are
typically reduced by leak detection and
repair work practice programs, and in
some cases, by equipment
modifications.
For these five Group I Polymers and
Resins 2 source categories—
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production;
HypalonTM Production; Polybutadiene
Rubber Production; Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production; and NBR
Production—we have determined that
the current MACT standards reduce risk
to an acceptable level, provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
and prevent adverse environmental
effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting
the existing MACT standards to satisfy
section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also
determined that there have been no
significant developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies since
promulgation of the MACT standards,
and that, therefore, it is not necessary to
revise the MACT standard pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6).3
2 We previously re-adopted the existing MACT
standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA for
four Group I Polymers and Resins source
categories—Neoprene Rubber Production; Ethylene
Propylene Rubber Production; Butyl Rubber
Production; and Polysulfide Rubber Production. See
73 FR 76220, published December 16, 2008.
3 We note there are no longer any operating
facilities in the United States that produce
HypalonTM, and we do not anticipate that any will
begin operation in the future.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22569
We are eliminating the subcategories
in the Butyl Rubber source category
(Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber)
because the technical differences that
distinguished the subcategories when
the original rule was developed no
longer exist. The existing requirements
for facilities producing either butyl
rubber or halobutyl rubber as the
primary product are identical, and,
therefore, the removal of the
subcategory distinction does not affect
these requirements. The source category
remains named Butyl Rubber
Production. We are establishing
standards at the MACT floor level of
control for previously unregulated
hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions from
front-end process vents in the Butyl
Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber
source categories. We are also
establishing standards at the MACT
floor level of control for previously
unregulated back-end process
operations in the Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers, NBR, Neoprene, and Butyl
Rubber source categories.
The numerical emission standards
that are being finalized in this action for
new and existing major source facilities
in the Group 1 Polymers and Resins
source categories are shown in Table 3
of this preamble.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
ER21AP11.001</GPH>
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22570
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
We are finalizing changes to the
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
standards to eliminate the SSM
exemption. These changes revise Table
1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart U to
indicate that several requirements of the
40 CFR part 63 General Provisions
related to periods of SSM do not apply.
We are adding provisions to the Group
I Polymers and Resins MACT standards
to operate in a manner that minimizes
emissions, removing the SSM plan
requirement, removing the explanation
of applicability of emissions standards
during periods of SSM, revising the
definition of initial start-up to remove
references to malfunctions, clarifying
the required conditions for performance
tests, and revising the SSM-associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to require
reporting and recordkeeping for periods
of malfunction. We are also adding
provisions to provide an affirmative
defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards
caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense.
We are also requiring the electronic
submittal of performance test data to
increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and to improve data
accessibility. Specifically, owners and
operators of Group I Polymers and
Resins facilities are required to submit
electronic copies of applicable reports of
performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE
database through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This
requirement to submit performance test
data electronically to EPA does not
require any additional performance
testing, and applies only to those
performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT.
We anticipate that the front-end
process vent limits will not require
additional control to meet the floor-level
standards for HCl emissions from frontend process operations at the facilities
in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene
Propylene Rubber source categories. We
anticipate that facilities in the Butyl
Rubber, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers,
Neoprene Rubber, and NBR source
categories will not require additional
control to meet the floor-level standards
for the back-end process operations.
To demonstrate compliance with the
front-end process vent HCl emissions
provisions of the final rule, the facility
owner or operator will be required to
submit an initial notification of the
calculated front-end HCl limit for the
facility and to perform and record
monthly calculations of the mass of HCl
emissions and the mass of elastomer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
product produced. These recorded
monthly calculations are required to be
submitted in the semi-annual
compliance reports already required by
existing provisions of the rule.
To demonstrate compliance with the
back-end process operation provisions
of the final rule, the facility owner or
operator will be required to submit an
initial notification of the calculated
back-end limit for the facility, and to
perform and record monthly
calculations of the mass of HAP
emissions and the mass of elastomer
product produced. These recorded
monthly calculations are required to be
submitted in the semi-annual
compliance reports already required by
existing provisions of the rule.
The final changes to the Group I
Polymers and Resins MACT standards
are not expected to result in substantial
emissions reduction or economic
impacts. We have determined that
facilities in the Group 1 Polymers and
Resins categories can meet the
applicable emissions limits at all times,
including periods of startup and
shutdown, with the exception of the
organic HAP emissions limits applicable
to front-end process vents at facilities in
the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene
Propylene Rubber source categories. We
have determined that facilities in the
Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene
Rubber source categories cannot meet
the applicable organic HAP emission
limits applicable to continuous frontend process vents during periods of
shutdown. Therefore, we are
establishing alternative emissions limits
during these periods. No substantial
changes in costs to industry are
predicted.
B. What are the final rule amendments
for the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations (MTVLO) source category?
MTVLO are loading operations
conducted at marine terminals in which
liquid commodities, such as crude oil,
gasoline, and other fuels or chemicals,
are pumped from the terminal’s large,
above-ground storage tanks through a
network of pipes into a storage
compartment (tank) on the vessel.
Emissions occur as vapors are displaced
from the tank as it is being filled. Most
MTVLO facilities are either independent
terminals or are associated with
synthetic organic chemical
manufacturers or with petroleum
refineries (although MTVLO at
petroleum refineries are part of the
Petroleum Refinery source category).
For these MTVLO facilities, we have
determined that the current MACT
standards reduce risk to an acceptable
level, provide an ample margin of safety
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22571
to protect public health, and prevent
adverse environmental effects. We are,
therefore, re-adopting the existing
MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA. We have also determined
that the costs of the only significant
development in practices, processes, or
control technologies since promulgation
of the MACT standards is
disproportionate to the emission
reduction that would be achieved, and
we are not adopting additional
technology standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing changes to the
MTVLO MACT standards to require
standards for two subcategories of
MTVLO facilities for which the current
MTVLO MACT standards do not
include emission standards. These
subcategories are facilities with MTVLO
that emit less than 10/25 TPY of HAP
that are located at a major source of
HAP emissions and facilities located
more than 0.5 miles from shore. For
these source categories, we are adding a
requirement for the facilities to perform
submerged fill. This requirement is the
MACT floor level of control.
We are finalizing changes to the
MTVLO MACT standards to eliminate
the SSM exemption. These changes
revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart Y to indicate that several
requirements of the 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions related to periods of
SSM do not apply. We are adding
provisions to the MTVLO MACT
standards to operate in a manner that
minimizes emissions, clarifying the
required conditions for performance
tests, and revising the SSM-associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to require
reporting and recordkeeping for periods
of malfunction. We are also adding
provisions to provide an affirmative
defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards
caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense.
Additionally, we are requiring the
electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency
of data submittal and to improve data
accessibility. Specifically, owners and
operators of MTVLO are required to
submit electronic copies of applicable
reports of performance tests to EPA’s
WebFIRE database through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the
ERT. This requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to
EPA does not require any additional
performance testing, and applies only to
those performance tests conducted
using test methods that are supported by
the ERT. The final changes to the
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22572
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
MTVLO MACT standards will have
little or no impact on HAP emissions or
costs because facilities currently use
submerged fill, as required by Coast
Guard regulations.4
C. What are the final rule amendments
for the Pharmaceuticals Production
source category?
The pharmaceutical manufacturing
process consists of chemical production
operations that produce drugs and
medications. These operations include
chemical synthesis (deriving a drug’s
active ingredient) and chemical
formulation (producing a drug in its
final form). Emissions occur from
breathing and withdrawal losses from
chemical storage tanks, venting of
process vessels, leaks from piping and
equipment used to transfer HAP
compounds (equipment leaks), and
volatilization of HAP from wastewater
streams.
For the reasons provided in the
proposed rule and in the support
documents in the docket, we have
determined that the current MACT
standards for Pharmaceutical
Production facilities reduce risk to an
acceptable level, provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
and prevent adverse environmental
effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting
the existing MACT standards to satisfy
section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also
determined that there have been no
significant developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies since
promulgation of the MACT standards,
and that, therefore, it is not necessary to
revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing changes to the
Pharmaceutical Production MACT
standards to eliminate the SSM
exemption. These changes revise Table
1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG to
indicate that several requirements of the
40 CFR General Provisions related to
periods of SSM do not apply. We are
adding provisions to the
Pharmaceuticals Production MACT
standards to operate in a manner that
minimizes emissions, removing the
SSM plan requirement, removing the
exemption provisions for periods of
SSM in 40 CFR 63.1250(g), requiring
that delay of equipment leak repair
plans be contained in a separate
document, clarifying the required
conditions for performance tests, and
revising the SSM-associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to require reporting and
recordkeeping for periods of
malfunction. We are also adding
4 46
CFR 153.282.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
provisions to provide an affirmative
defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards
caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense.
We are also requiring the electronic
submittal of performance test data to
increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and to improve data
accessibility. Specifically, owners and
operators of Pharmaceuticals Production
facilities are required to submit
electronic copies of applicable reports of
performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE
database through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the
ERT. This requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to
EPA does not require any additional
performance testing, and applies only to
those performance tests conducted
using test methods that are supported by
the ERT.
We are also finalizing a correction to
an editorial error in 40 CFR
63.1257(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii). This section
incorrectly provides that only one of the
three listed criteria must be met for the
inlet to the equalization tank to be
considered the inlet to the biological
treatment process. The final correction
specifies that all of the criteria must be
met.
These revisions to the Pharmaceutical
Production MACT standards are not
expected to result in substantial
emissions reduction or economic
impacts. We have determined that
facilities in this source category can
meet the applicable emissions standards
at all times, including periods of startup
and shutdown, are in compliance with
the current MACT standard. No
substantial changes in costs to industry
are predicted. The correction to the
editorial error may result in minimal
costs to add or move equipment and
may also result in some small amount
of emission reductions for any facility
that was meeting only one or two of the
three listed criteria. However, as the
intent of the current MACT standards at
the time they were promulgated was to
require facilities to meet all three
criteria, the costs and emission
reductions associated with this
requirement were factored into the
impacts of the MACT standards at the
time the standards were promulgated in
1998. See 63 FR 50287.
D. What are the final rule amendments
for the Printing and Publishing Industry
source category?
Printing and publishing facilities are
those facilities that use rotogravure,
flexography, and other methods, such as
lithography, letterpress, and screen
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
printing, to print on a variety of
substrates, including paper, plastic film,
metal foil, and vinyl. The Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards
include two subcategories: (1)
Publication rotogravure printing and (2)
product and packaging rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic printing.
Emissions occur from the evaporation of
solvents in the inks and from cleaning
solvents. The emission points include
printing presses and associated dryers
and ink and solvent storage.
For the reasons provided in the
proposed rule and in the support
documents in the docket, we have
determined that the current MACT
standards for Printing and Publishing
facilities reduce risk to an acceptable
level, provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health, and prevent
adverse environmental effects. We are,
therefore, re-adopting the existing
MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA. We have also determined
that the costs of the only significant
development in practices, processes, or
control technologies since promulgation
of the MACT standards is
disproportionate to the emission
reduction that would be achieved, and,
therefore, we are not adopting
additional technology standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing changes to the
Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards to eliminate the SSM
exemption. These changes revise Table
1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK to
indicate that several requirements of the
40 CFR part 63 General Provisions
related to periods of SSM do not apply.
We are adding provisions to the Printing
and Publishing Industry MACT
standards requiring sources to operate
in a manner that minimizes emissions,
removing the SSM plan requirement,
clarifying the required conditions for
performance tests, and revising the
SSM-associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to require reporting and
recordkeeping for periods of
malfunction. We are also adding
provisions to provide an affirmative
defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards
caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense.
We are also requiring the electronic
submittal of performance test data to
increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and to improve data
accessibility. Specifically, owners and
operators of printing and publishing
facilities are required to submit
electronic copies of applicable reports of
performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
database through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the
Electronic ERT. This requirement to
submit performance test data
electronically to EPA does not require
any additional performance testing, and
applies only to those performance tests
conducted using test methods that are
supported by the ERT.
These revisions to the Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards
are not expected to result in substantial
emissions reduction or economic
impacts. We have determined that
facilities in this source category can
meet the applicable emissions standards
at all times, including periods of startup
and shutdown, are in compliance with
the current MACT standards. No
substantial changes in costs to industry
are predicted.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
E. What are the requirements during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated portions of two provisions in
EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically,
the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that is part of a
regulation, commonly referred to as the
‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that EPA
promulgated under section 112 of the
CAA. When incorporated into CAA
section 112(d) regulations for specific
source categories, these two provisions
exempt sources from the requirement to
comply with the otherwise applicable
CAA section 112 emission standards
during periods of SSM.
While the Court’s ruling in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir.
2008), did not directly affect all the
NESHAP rules being addressed, the
legality of source category-specific SSM
provisions, such as those in all four
NESHAP rules, are called into question
based on the reasoning in that decision.
We have eliminated the SSM
exemptions in these four NESHAP.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
EPA’s standards in these rules will
apply at all times. We have eliminated
or revised certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that were related
to the SSM exemption that no longer
applies. EPA has attempted to ensure
that we have not included in the
regulatory language any provisions that
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant in light of the removal of the
SSM exemption.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
EPA has not established different
standards for periods of startup and
shutdown for three of the four NESHAP
addressed in this rule because we
believe compliance with the standards
is achievable during these periods. In
the case of MTVLO, loading of marine
tank vessels occurs in ‘‘batches,’’ and
general practice is for the loading
operators to test out the vapor control
system before it is attached to the tank
vessel. In the case of the
Pharmaceuticals Production MACT
standards, we expect the difference in
emission levels during periods of
startup and shutdown are insignificant
and that facilities in this source category
should be able to comply with the
standards during these times. In the case
of the Printing and Publishing MACT
standards, we believe there are
sufficiently long averaging times
incorporated into the emissions limits
that facilities should be able to comply
during periods of startup and shutdown.
In the case of Group I Polymers and
Resins, one commenter stated that
organic HAP emissions that are required
to be sent to emissions control
equipment (i.e., flares) may not be able
to comply with the MACT standards
during periods of shutdown. The
commenter stated that they may not
always be able to route some of their
process vents to a flare during periods
of shutdown due to the low pressure or
low heating value in the process vent.
EPA agrees with the commenter that it
is not possible to comply with the
applicable standard during periods of
shutdown, and has provided an
alternative standard applicable during
these times.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
However, by contrast, malfunction is
defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and
not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner * * *’’ (40 CFR
60.2). EPA has determined that CAA
section 112 does not require that
emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction be factored into
development of CAA section 112
standards. Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level
‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar
source, and for existing sources,
generally must be no less stringent than
the average emission limitation
‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12
percent of sources in the category. There
is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22573
malfunctions in determining the level
‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or
best controlled sources when setting
emission standards. Moreover, while
EPA accounts for variability in setting
emissions standards consistent with the
CAA section 112 case law, nothing in
that case law requires the Agency to
consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. CAA Section 112 uses the
concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ and ‘‘best
performing’’ unit in defining the level of
stringency that CAA section 112
performance standards must meet.
Applying the concept of ‘‘best
controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a
unit that is malfunctioning presents
significant difficulties, as malfunctions
are sudden and unexpected events.
Further, accounting for malfunctions
would be difficult, if not impossible,
given the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all
sources in the category, and, given the
difficulties associated with predicting or
accounting for the frequency, degree,
and duration of various malfunctions
that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999)
(EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We
generally defer to an agency’s decision
to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to
‘‘invest the resources to conduct the
perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir.
1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even
any upset provision can anticipate all
upset situations. After a certain point,
the transgression of regulatory limits
caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third
parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a
matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by
regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a
best controlled or best performing
source is to operate in such a way as to
avoid malfunctions of the source, and
accounting for malfunctions could lead
to standards that are significantly less
stringent than levels that are achieved
by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. EPA’s approach
to malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112, and is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
112 standards as a result of a
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22574
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response
based on, among other things, the good
faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods,
including preventative and corrective
actions, as well as root cause analyses
to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. EPA would also consider
whether the source’s failure to comply
with the CAA section 112 standard was,
in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable’’ and was not
instead ‘‘caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.’’
40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
Finally, EPA recognizes that even
equipment that is properly designed and
maintained can sometimes fail, and that
such failure can sometimes cause an
exceedance of the relevant emission
standard. (See, e.g., State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown
(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983)). EPA is, therefore, adding to
the final rules an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by
malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.482 (Group
I Polymers and Resins), 63.561
(MTVLO), 63.822 (The Printing and
Publishing Industry), 63.1251
(Pharmaceuticals Production). The
regulations define ‘‘affirmative defense’’
to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or
defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the
burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively
evaluated in a judicial or administrative
proceeding. We also have added other
regulatory provisions to specify the
elements that are necessary to establish
this affirmative defense. See 40 CFR
63.480 (Group I Polymers and Resins),
40 CFR 63.560 (MTVLO), 40 CFR 63.820
(The Printing and Publishing Industry),
40 CFR 63.1250 (Pharmaceuticals
Production). The source must prove by
a preponderance of evidence that it has
met all of the elements set forth in
affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 22.24.
The criteria ensure that the affirmative
defense is available only where the
event that causes an exceedance of the
emission limit meets the narrow
definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2
(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable
preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance and/or careless operation).
For example, to successfully assert the
affirmative defense, the source must
prove by a preponderance of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere
caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner
* * *’’ The criteria also are designed to
ensure that steps are taken to correct the
malfunction, to minimize emissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i),
and to prevent future malfunctions. For
example, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that
‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as
possible when the applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded * * *’’
and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken
to minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health * * *’’
In any judicial or administrative
proceeding, the Administrator may
challenge the assertion of the affirmative
defense, and, if the respondent has not
met its burden of proving all of the
requirements in the affirmative defense,
appropriate penalties may be assessed
in accordance with section 113 of the
CAA (see also 40 CFR part 22.77).
F. What are the requirements for
submission of emissions test results to
EPA?
EPA must have performance test data
to conduct effective reviews of CAA
sections 112 and 129 standards, as well
as for many other purposes, including
compliance determinations, emission
factor development, and annual
emission rate determinations. In
conducting these required reviews, EPA
has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for
regulatory agencies, and source owners
and operators, to locate, collect, and
submit performance test data because of
varied locations for data storage and
varied data storage methods. In recent
years, though, performance test data in
electronic format have become readily
available, making it possible to move to
an electronic data submittal system that
would increase the ease and efficiency
of data submittal and improve data
accessibility.
In this action, as a step to increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal
and improve data accessibility, EPA is
requiring the electronic submittal of
select performance test data.
Specifically, EPA is requiring owners
and operators of sources subject to these
MACT standards to submit electronic
copies of applicable reports of
performance tests to EPA’s WebFIRE
database. The WebFIRE database was
constructed to store performance test
data for use in developing emission
factors. A description of the WebFIRE
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
database is available at https://
cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/
index.cfm?action=fire.main. Data entry
will be through an electronic emissions
test report structure called the ERT.
The ERT will be able to transmit the
electronic report through EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) network for
storage in the WebFIRE database.
Although ERT is not the only electronic
interface that can be used to submit
performance test data to the CDX for
entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal
of data very straightforward and easy. A
description of the ERT can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
ert_tool.html.
The requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to
EPA would not require any additional
performance testing, and would apply to
those performance tests conducted
using test methods that are supported by
the ERT. The ERT contains a specific
electronic data entry form for most of
the commonly used EPA reference
methods. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is
available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/ert/ert_tool.html. When a facility
submits performance test data to CDX,
there will be no additional requirements
for performance test data compilation.
Moreover, we believe that industry will
benefit from this new electronic data
submittal requirement. Having these
data, EPA will be able to develop
improved emission factors, make fewer
information requests, and promulgate
better regulations. The information to be
reported is already required for the
existing test methods, and is necessary
to evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
One major advantage of submitting
performance test data through the ERT
is a standardized method to compile
and store much of the documentation
required to be reported by this rule that
also clearly states what testing
information would be required. Another
important benefit of submitting these
data to EPA at the time the source test
is conducted is that it should
substantially reduce the effort involved
in data collection activities in the
future. When EPA has performance test
data in hand, there will likely be fewer
or less substantial data collection
requests in conjunction with
prospective required residual risk
assessments or technology reviews. This
results in a reduced burden on both
affected facilities (in terms of reduced
manpower to respond to data collection
requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing
and distributing data collection requests
and assessing the results).
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
State, local, and tribal agencies will
benefit from electronic data submission
as their review of the data will be more
streamlined and accurate, because they
would not have to re-enter the data to
assess the calculations and verify the
data entry. Finally, another benefit of
submitting data to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data will
greatly improve the overall quality of
the existing and new emission factors by
supplementing the pool of emissions
test data upon which the emission factor
is based, and by ensuring that data are
more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common
complaint heard from industry and
regulators is that emission factors are
outdated or not representative of a
particular source category. By receiving
and incorporating data for most
performance tests, EPA will be able to
ensure that emission factors, when
updated, represent the most current
range of operational practices. In
summary, in addition to supporting
regulation development, control strategy
development, and other air pollution
control activities, having an electronic
database populated with performance
test data will save industry, State, local,
and tribal agencies, and EPA significant
time, money, and effort while improving
the quality of emission inventories, and,
as a result, air quality regulations.
G. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards
being promulgated in this action are
effective on April 21, 2011. For the
MACT standards being addressed in this
action, the compliance date for the
revised SSM requirements is the
effective date of the standards, April 21,
2011. The electronic reporting
requirements for the four MACT
standards being addressed in this action
are effective on January 1, 2012. For the
Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT
standards, the compliance date for
existing sources for the new MACT
standards applicable to front-end and
back-end process operations is 1 year
from the effective date of the standards,
April 23, 2012. For the Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations MACT
standards, the compliance date for the
new requirements for submerged fill is
1 year from the effective date of the
standards, April 23, 2012. The
compliance date for the corrected
provision in the Pharmaceuticals
Production MACT standards is the
effective date of the standards, April 21,
2011. Beyond the revised SSM and
electronic reporting requirements, there
are no changes to The Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
IV. Summary of Significant Changes
Since Proposal
A. What changes did we make to the
risk assessments for these source
categories since proposal?
CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to
determine whether certain emissions
standards reduce risk to an acceptable
level, and once we have ensured that
the risk is acceptable, whether the
standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and
prevent an adverse environmental
effect. First we determine whether there
is an acceptable risk. EPA generally
presumes that, if the maximum
individual risk (MIR) is no higher than
100-in-1 million, that risk is acceptable.
In addition to MIR, EPA also considers
a series of other health measures and
factors to complete an overall judgment
on acceptability. In some cases, these
health measures and factors taken
together may provide a more realistic
description of the magnitude of risk in
the exposed population than MIR alone.
If the risk is unacceptable, EPA must
require additional controls, without
consideration of cost, to ensure an
acceptable level of risk. After
determining that the level of risk is
acceptable, EPA evaluates whether the
standards provide an ample margin of
safety by considering costs and
economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, and other
relevant factors, in addition to those
health measures and factors considered
to determined acceptability.
Considering all of these factors, EPA
ensures that the standard is set at a level
that provides an ample margin of safety
to protect public health, as required by
CAA section 112(f).
At proposal, we conducted risk
assessments that provided estimates of
the MIR posed by the allowable and
actual HAP emissions from each source
in a category, the distribution of cancer
risks within the exposed populations,
cancer incidence, hazard index (HI) for
chronic exposures to HAP with noncancer health effects, and hazard
quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to
HAP with non-cancer health effects. We
found that the residual risks to public
health from all source categories subject
to these four MACT standards are
acceptable, and, further, that the
existing standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health
and pose no adverse environmental
effects. Thus, we proposed that no
additional controls would be required to
address such risks. Specifically, we
found that the lifetime cancer risk to the
individual most exposed to emissions
from each of these seven source
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22575
categories 5 was less than 100-in-1
million for both the actual emissions
and the emissions that would occur if
emissions from the source categories
were at the maximum levels allowed by
the standards. Additional analyses
showed that the cancer incidence and
number of people with cancer risk over
1-in-1 million were low. In addition, a
review of the acute non-cancer
exposures showed that none of these
seven source categories posed an
appreciable risk of acute non-cancer
health effects. We also determined that
HAP emissions from these source
categories were not expected to result in
adverse environmental effects.
To support our decisions regarding
acceptability and ample margin of safety
in the proposal, we also conducted risk
assessments that accounted for HAP
emissions from entire facilities at which
a source covered by one of the standards
under review was located. With the
exception of two facilities with MTVLO
on-site that had facility-wide risks
greater than 100-in-1 million, based on
the data we had at that time, we
concluded, for purposes of the proposal,
that the facility-wide risk for sources in
the four source categories was also
relatively low. As a result of data and
information received from commenters
on the proposal, we now project the
highest facility-wide risk with MTVLO
on-site is approximately 90-in-1 million.
Uncertainty and the potential for bias
are inherent in all risk assessments,
including those performed for the
source categories addressed in these
final rules. Although uncertainty exists,
we believe that our approach, which
used conservative tools and
assumptions, ensures that our decisions
are health-protective. A discussion of
the uncertainties in the emissions
datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and
dose-response relationships is provided
in the preamble to the proposed rule.
See 75 FR 65081–65083.
5 The seven source categories for which we
conducted RTR are Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production; Polybutadiene Rubber Production;
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production;
and NBR Production; Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production; and
Printing and Publishing. We did not conduct RTR
for four of the Group I Polymers and Resins source
categories (Butyl Rubber Production; Ethylene
Propylene Rubber Production; Polysulfide Rubber
Production; and Neoprene), because we previously
re-adopted the existing MACT standard to satisfy
section 112(f) of the CAA. See 73 FR 76220,
published December 16, 2008. In addition, we did
not conduct RTR for HypalonTM Production,
because there are no longer any facilities operating
in the United States.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22576
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
B. What changes did we make to the
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
since proposal?
We are eliminating the subcategories
(i.e., Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl
Rubber) in the Butyl Rubber source
category because we agree with
commenters who stated that both
facilities in the Butyl Rubber source
category now produce halobutyl rubber
as the primary product, and the
technical differences that distinguished
the subcategories no longer exist. The
current MACT standards for facilities in
this source category are not affected by
the removal of the subcategory
distinction because the existing
standards are identical for each
subcategory. In October 2010, we
proposed the same standards for both
subcategories for the front-end process
operations. However, we proposed
different standards for each subcategory
for the back-end process operations.
Considering that both facilities would
now be identified as being part of one
source category by primary product
determination, it would not be
appropriate to finalize the proposed
requirements that were based on
analyses of each facility in its own
subcategory. To address the two
facilities together in one Butyl Rubber
source category, we re-evaluated the
emissions reductions, costs, and other
impacts of controls for both the backend operations and the front-end
process vents for these two facilities.
For the front-end process vents, we had
proposed beyond-the-floor standards for
both the Butyl Rubber subcategory and
the Halobutyl Rubber subcategory, along
with the Ethylene Propylene Rubber
source category. Based on our revised
analyses, we are setting requirements for
the combined Butyl Rubber source
category at the MACT floor level of
control. The requirements for the
Ethylene Propylene Rubber source
category are also being set at the MACT
floor level of control. For the back-end
process operations, we had proposed
beyond-the-floor standards for the Butyl
Rubber subcategory, and the MACT
floor level of control for the Halobutyl
Rubber subcategory. Based on our
revised analyses, we are setting
requirements for the combined Butyl
Rubber source category at the MACT
floor level of control.
We are finalizing our proposal to set
standards at the MACT floor level of
control for back-end process operations
in the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers,
NBR, and Neoprene source categories.
However, based on information we
received during the comment period, we
have revised some of the MACT floor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
limits for these source categories.
Information received for the only
facility in the Neoprene Rubber
Production source category corrected
the emissions rate of one HAP emissions
source, and we have revised the MACT
floor limit for that source category to
reflect the corrected emissions rate. We
also received information during the
comment period for the one facility in
the NBR source category, which showed
that, due to the different grades of
product produced, the rate of emissions
per unit of production varies. Similarly,
the one facility in the Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers source category also
expected to have variations in the rate
of emissions per unit of production,
based on its different grades of product
produced. Considering this variation in
emissions, we increased the limit of the
MACT floor for these source categories
to allow for the observed variability in
emissions per unit of production. We
also added factors to account for
variation in emissions per unit of
production for the Butyl Rubber and
Ethylene Propylene Rubber source
categories, based on information
received for the facilities in this source
category.
C. What changes did we make to the
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
MACT since proposal?
We proposed the MACT floor as
submerged fill for the two subcategories
not previously regulated (facilities
emitting less than 10/25 TPY of HAP
from MTVLO, and those ‘‘offshore’’
facilities located more than 0.5 miles
from shore). Additionally, under the
CAA section 112(d)(6) technology
review of the existing MTVLO MACT,
and as setting the beyond-the-floor
MACT standards for the two
subcategories not previously regulated,
we proposed that existing facilities
loading 1 million barrels per year (bbl/
yr) of gasoline install vapor controls,
either meeting 97-percent control, or the
equivalent emission limit of 10
milligrams per liter (mg/l).
We are finalizing the proposed MACT
floor work practice to require
submerged fill of liquids into marine
tank vessels at those previously
unregulated sources. However, as a
result of information received during
the comment period, we are not
finalizing the requirements we proposed
under the technology review
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6),
the beyond the floor and technology
review requirements for vapor control
technology for facilities loading 1
million bbl/yr.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
V. Summary of Significant Comments
and Responses
In the proposed action, we requested
public comments on our residual risk
reviews, our technology reviews,
proposed amendments to delete the
startup and shutdown exemptions and
the malfunction exemption, the control
of unregulated HAP, and clarification of
rule provisions. We received written
comments from 104 commenters. Our
responses to the public comments that
changed the basis for our decisions or
are otherwise significant are provided
below.6
A. EPA’s Authority Under CAA
Section 112
Comment: We received comments
both in favor of and objecting to EPA’s
consideration of various factors in
determining acceptable risk. Some
commenters argue that the two-step
process developed to address residual
risk and determine ‘‘ample margin of
safety’’ in the Benzene NESHAP should
be preserved. Commenters also request
that EPA continue to use its discretion
to determine that a maximum cancer
risk of 100-in-1 million is acceptable.
Another commenter supports EPA’s
commitment to avoid establishing
inflexible decision points for acceptable
risks or ample margin of safety.
Commenters also debate whether EPA
has the authority to evaluate, or should,
as a matter of policy, evaluate facilitywide risk, demographic assessments,
and risks based on actual or allowable
emissions.
Response: For the four rules we are
finalizing, our evaluation of facilitywide risk, demographics, and allowable
emissions did not change our decisions
about acceptability and ample margin of
safety. Therefore, comments on how
these factors were used by EPA in
determining acceptable risks are not
germane to these final rules. We note,
however, that section 112(f)(2) of the
CAA expressly preserves our use of the
two-step process for developing
standards to address residual risk and
interpret ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ as
developed in the Benzene NESHAP.7 In
both the Benzene NESHAP and our
6 See Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Group I Polymers and Resins, Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations, Pharmaceutical
Production, and The Printing and Publishing
NESHAP (March 2011), for summaries of other
comments and our responses to them.
7 See National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic
Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants,
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment
Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants
(Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14,
1989).
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Residual Risk Report 8 to Congress, we
explain that we do not define ‘‘rigid
line(s) of acceptability’’ and that we will
consider a series of other health
measures and factors in determining if
risk is acceptable. Our authority to use
the two-step process laid out in the
Benzene NESHAP, and to consider a
variety of measures of risk to public
health is discussed more thoroughly in
the preamble to the proposal. See 75 FR
65071–65073.
Comment: Some commenters state
that our review under CAA section
112(d)(6) should be limited to only
advances in work practices and control
technologies, and should not include
emission points not regulated by the
existing MACT standard. Expanding
rule applicability should not be
considered, as it has nothing to do with
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies and is not
indicated in the CAA as a basis for the
technology review. The commenter
states that EPA already made
applicability determinations in the
original MACT rules by evaluating the
floor and beyond-the-floor options, and
nothing in the CAA warrants review of
these determinations. The commenters
also state these changes should only be
considered in the CAA section 112(f)
risk review to reduce risks.
Some commenters stated that a review
under CAA section 112(d)(6) is not
required if the post-MACT emissions
levels result in risks that are deemed to
be protective of public health with an
ample margin of safety. Furthermore,
they stated that EPA should exempt
source categories from CAA section
112(d)(6) review once this level has
been achieved. They add that the review
under CAA section 112(d)(6) should be
considered an extension of the main
purpose of CAA section 112, which is
to reduce the public’s exposure to air
toxics, and not to impose new
technology just because it is available.
One commenter states that it was the
intent of Congress for the MACT
standards to ultimately reduce risk from
sources to a level considered acceptable,
and there is no legislative history to
suggest that Congress expected EPA to
revise MACT standards after these
levels had been achieved.
Another commenter states an
opposing view, saying that, in keeping
with the context of CAA section 112(d),
which requires technology-based
standards that reflect the maximum
degree of emission reduction
achievable, CAA section 112(d)(6)
serves as an on-going ratchet to
continually require EPA to update
standards to keep pace with new
technology. The commenter states that
the decision of the Court in the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) 9
ruling, while not requiring recalculation
of the floor for that standard, did so only
for that MACT because there were no
new developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies, and
expressly declined to decide whether
EPA was required to recalculate the
floors for other instances where there
were such developments.
Response: We note that we do not
consider unregulated emission points
under CAA section 112(d)(6). To the
extent there are unregulated emission
points, we set standards under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We are not
revising any of the four MACT rules in
this notice pursuant to the CAA section
112(d)(6) review. Instead, for the newly
regulated emissions points in the Group
I Polymers and Resins source categories
and in the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations source category we are
promulgating MACT standards under
CAA sections 112(d)(2)–(3).
In our CAA section 112(d)(6) review
of pre-existing standards, we consider
both improvements in practices,
processes, or control technologies that
we may have previously considered, as
well as practices, processes, or control
technologies that are new, or were
unknown to us when the original MACT
rule was developed. Because
incremental changes in the practices,
processes, or control technologies can
have a significant impact on emissions,
these changes are considered in our
analysis of whether to revise the MACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
In considering both existing and new
practices, processes, and control
technologies, we consider costs and
other factors in determining whether it
is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the existing
standard.
We disagree with the view that a
determination under CAA section 112(f)
of an ample margin of safety and no
adverse environmental effects alone
will, in all cases, cause us to determine
that a revision is not necessary under
CAA section 112(d)(6). In some cases,
even if risk factors remain the same
from one round of CAA section
112(d)(6) review to another, changes in
costs or availability of control
technology may be sufficient to alter a
previous conclusion about whether to
impose further controls. We also
disagree with the assertion that the HON
Court’s ruling that CAA section
8 See Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA–453/
R–99–001 (March 1999).
9 NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C.
Cir. 2008).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22577
112(d)(6) does not require re-calculation
of MACT floors was limited to instances
in which there have not been
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies. In fact, the Court
was quite clear on this point, and
declined to rule only on whether it was
appropriate for EPA to consider costs
and risks in conducting CAA section
112(d)(6) reviews, as the issue was
rendered moot by the litigants’ failure to
preserve it. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d
at 1084 (‘‘It has been argued that EPA
was obliged to completely recalculate
the maximum achievable control
technology—in other words, to start
from scratch. We do not think the words
‘review, and revise as necessary’ can be
construed reasonably as imposing any
such obligation. Even if the statute did
impose such an obligation, petitioners
have not identified any post-1994
technological innovations that EPA has
overlooked.’’).
Comment: Commenters state that EPA
does not have the authority under CAA
section 112(d)(2) or (3) to later review
and possibly revise the MACT
determination once a MACT
determination has been made for a
source category. Several commenters
state that EPA only has the authority to
revisit the rulemaking if a timely legal
challenge to the standard is lodged. The
commenters further note they are not
aware of any instance where EPA has
revisited a beyond-the-floor analysis in
the absence of a Court decision, rule
vacatur, or settlement agreement.
Commenters also state that reassessing
MACT standards and imposing more
stringent requirements would also be
inconsistent with Congress’s desire for
finality evident in the judicial review
provisions of CAA section 307(b), which
provides that challenges to MACT
standards must be raised within 60 days
of their promulgation, assuring that
regulated entities, EPA, and the public
know what emissions limitations will
apply to a source rather than having
those limitations be subject to flux.
In contrast, one commenter states that
it is appropriate and essential that EPA
establish control for all emissions
sources, including sources that
previously had ‘‘no control’’ floors,
under CAA section 112(d)(6). The
commenter states that EPA should
continue to do this for all MACT
standards.
Response: Under CAA section
112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate
technology-based standards that reflect
the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements,
and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). Nothing in the
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22578
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
CAA or its legislative history suggests
that EPA is prohibited from reviewing
and revising MACT standards, except as
part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) or
CAA section 112(f) reviews. Where we
identify emission points that were
erroneously not previously regulated
under a MACT rule, we may identify
MACT floor and beyond-the-floor
control options for existing and new
sources. An agency generally remains
free to revise improperly promulgated or
otherwise unsupportable rules, even in
the absence of a remand from a Court.
United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery
Props., Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966)
(‘‘An agency, like a court, can undo what
is wrongfully done by virtue of its
order.’’); Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822,
825–26 (5th Cir. 2002) (‘‘[I]t is generally
accepted that in the absence of a
specific statutory limitation, an
administrative agency has the inherent
authority to reconsider its decisions.’’).
Agencies have particularly broad
authority to revise their regulations to
correct their errors. Last Best Beef, LLC
v. Dudas, 506 F.3d 333, 340 (4th Cir.
2007); Friends of the Boundary Water
Wilderness v. Bosworth, 437 F.3d 815,
823 (8th Cir. 2006) (‘‘It is widely
accepted that an agency may, on its own
initiative, reconsider its interim or even
final decisions, regardless of whether
the applicable statute and agency
regulations expressly provide for such
review.’’) (citations omitted). Moreover,
an agency may reconsider its
methodologies and application of its
statutory requirements and may even
completely reverse course, regardless of
whether a court has determined that its
original regulation is flawed, so long as
the agency explains its bases for doing
so. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State
Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,
42 (1983); FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1810
(2009); Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n
v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967,
981–82 (2005) (internal citations
omitted): (‘‘’An initial agency
interpretation is not instantly carved in
stone. On the contrary, the agency
* * * must consider varying
interpretations and the wisdom of its
policy on a continuing basis,’ Chevron,
supra at 863–864[], for example, in
response to changed factual
circumstances, or a change in
administration. That is, no doubt, why
in Chevron itself, this Court deferred to
an agency interpretation that was a
recent reversal of agency policy.’’)
Here, both the Polymers and Resins I
and the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP, as originally
promulgated, did not contain MACT
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
standards for certain significant HAP
emissions points, and, we are, therefore,
appropriately promulgating standards
for those emissions points under CAA
sections 112(d)(2)–(3) for the first time.
CAA section 112(d)(6) and CAA section
112(f)(2) do not govern the initial
establishment of the MACT standards.
This approach is consistent with other
recent actions that establish MACT
standards for the first time for
significant emissions points that had not
been previously addressed by CAA
section 112 (d) standards. See, e.g.,
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Petroleum Refineries; Final Rule, 74 FR
55670, 556773–74 (October 28, 2009).
B. Group 1 Polymers and Resins
Comment: One commenter states that,
due to changes made at a facility since
MACT promulgation, the facility would
no longer fall into the Butyl Rubber
subcategory, based on the primary
product made, and would be in the
Halobutyl Rubber subcategory. (The
Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber
subcategories comprise the Butyl
Rubber source category.) However, the
unit at this facility that produces
halobutyl rubber as the primary product
is a flexible operations unit that
produces three major products, one of
which is still butyl rubber, and,
therefore, emits significantly different
emissions from the only other halobutyl
rubber facility in the United States,
which produces halobutyl rubber
exclusively. Commenters recommend
EPA revise the Butyl Rubber source
category descriptions to distinguish
between halobutyl rubber-only and
flexible units, and to apply primary
product determinations only at the
category level, and not the subcategory
level. The commenters further state that,
if these facilities are not separated into
different subcategories and are both
included in the Halobutyl Rubber
subcategory, the current proposal and
supporting analyses will not be
applicable, and new analyses and
proposal will be needed.
Response: Currently there are only
two facilities in the United States that
produce either butyl or halobutyl
rubber. Since one of these facilities can
produce both butyl rubber and
halobutyl rubber, and since halobutyl
rubber is the primary product for both
of these facilities, we have concluded
that there is no longer a need to
maintain the subcategory distinction in
the Butyl Rubber source category in the
current MACT standards. Therefore, we
have removed the subcategories of
Halobutyl Rubber and Butyl Rubber in
the Butyl Rubber source category, and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
both facilities that were in these
subcategories will now be included in
the Butyl Rubber source category. The
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
standards create separate source
categories or subcategories by requiring
different standards for different types of
primary products. In the final rule, we
have removed the language that
distinguishes halobutyl rubber as a
separate product type, which has the
effect of removing the subcategories
from the Butyl Rubber source category.
While the existing MACT standards
have identical requirements for the
Butyl and Halobutyl Rubber
subcategories, we proposed different
requirements for these subcategories for
back-end process operations, and
common requirements for the front-end
process vents at proposal.
With the removal of the subcategory
distinction, we have revised our
analyses of the emissions reductions,
costs, and other impacts of controls for
both the front-end and back-end process
operations for these two facilities. Based
on these analyses, we determined that
the beyond-the-floor standards for frontend process operations that were
proposed separately for both the Butyl
Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber
subcategories, which are a 98-percent
reduction in organic HAP, and a 99percent reduction in hydrogen halides
and halogens, are not cost-effective for
the Butyl Rubber source category. We
are setting requirements for the
combined front-end process operations
for the Butyl Rubber source category at
the MACT floor level of control. For the
back-end process operations, we
proposed beyond-the-floor standards for
the Butyl Rubber subcategory, and the
MACT floor level of control for the
Halobutyl Rubber subcategory. Based on
our revised analyses, the beyond-thefloor level of control, which is a 98percent reduction in organic HAP, is not
cost-effective for the Butyl Rubber
source category. We are setting
requirements for the combined back-end
process operations for the Butyl Rubber
source category at the MACT floor level
of control. The current MACT standards
are not affected by the removal of the
subcategory distinction because the
existing standards are identical for each
subcategory.
Comment: One commenter stated that,
if a facility was subject to MACT
standards limiting HCl emissions from
its front-end process vents in the Butyl
Rubber source category and the
Ethylene Propylene Rubber source
category, then it would be unacceptable
business practice to route those
emissions to the proposed shared
control device. A shared control device
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
would limit operating flexibility, cause
lost business due to shutdown of both
units for expected maintenance of
thermal oxidizers and halogen
scrubbers, and the potential for lost
business, excess emissions, and dual
violations from both units from
unplanned shutdowns. The commenter
states that EPA, therefore, needs to
consider separate controls for each unit,
a spare thermal oxidizer and halogen
scrubber, or the significant lost business
and other costs and emission impacts of
having a shared control device in the
beyond-the-floor costs analysis for the
proposed control. The commenter
estimates that the costs for the units to
be controlled separately are $20,600/ton
HCl emissions reduced for the unit in
the Butyl Rubber source category (note
that the commenter refers to this as the
halobutyl rubber unit, since that is the
product being produced), and $51,000/
ton HCl emissions reduced for the unit
in the Ethylene Propylene Rubber
source category. Commenters also stated
that the proposed beyond-the-floor
MACT standards to control front-end
process vents in the Butyl Rubber and
Ethylene Propylene Rubber source
categories are not cost-effective and
should not be finalized. One commenter
provided data showing costs to range
from $16,900/ton of HAP emissions
reduced to $80,100/ton of HAP
emissions reduced to meet the proposed
front-end process vent MACT standards.
Response: We disagree with the claim
that the CAA precludes our taking note
of the co-location of these units in
estimating the costs to control the HCl
from these units. Nevertheless, based on
information received during the
comment period, we recalculated
separate source category cost estimates
for control of HCl from ethylene
propylene rubber and butyl rubber units
for the one facility where these units are
co-located. The changes from the
estimate at proposal primarily include
using a recuperative thermal oxidizer
rather than a direct flame incinerator,
and including additional ductwork and
pumps needed to convey emissions to
the control devices. We estimate that,
considered separately, the cost to
control the ethylene propylene rubber
front-end process vents would be
approximately $19,000/ton HCl
emissions reduced, and the cost to
control the butyl rubber front-end
process vents would be approximately
$12,000/ton HCl emission reduced.
Comment: Commenters state that the
proposed beyond-the-floor MACT
standards to control the back-end
process vents in the Butyl Rubber
source category are not cost-effective,
and should not be finalized. One
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
commenter provided data showing costs
to range from $72,300/ton of HAP
emissions reduced to $75,600/ton of
HAP emissions reduced to meet the
proposed back-end process vent MACT
standards.
Response: With the removal of the
subcategory distinction, we revised our
analyses of the emissions reductions,
costs, and other impacts of the beyondthe-floor option identified at proposal.
This beyond-the-floor option would
require the ducting of emissions from
the uncontrolled back-end process
operations to a control device for the
two facilities now in the Butyl Rubber
source category. In this revised analysis,
we considered information provided
during the comment period regarding
the types of oxidizers and ducting
equipment that would be needed for the
facilities in this source category for the
beyond-the-floor control option, as well
as the provided information on process
flow rates. From the revised analysis,
we estimate that thermal oxidizers
would achieve an emissions reduction
of 98 percent, resulting in a decrease in
hexane emissions of approximately 66
TPY. The capital costs of this option are
estimated to be approximately $3.5
million, total annual costs are estimated
to be approximately $1.5 million, and
the cost-effectiveness values would be
approximately $23,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced. We believe the costs
of this beyond-the-floor option are not
reasonable, given the level of emission
reduction. Therefore, we are finalizing
the MACT floor level of emissions. We
have determined that the MACT floor
level of control for the source category
is a production-based limit reflecting
each source’s organic HAP emissions
divided by its total elastomer product
leaving the stripper in 2009, multiplied
by a variability factor of 1.35. In
establishing the floor-level limit, the
variability factor was included to
account for the historic variability in the
amount of emissions per unit of
production at these facilities.
Comment: Commenters noted that the
emissions from back-end process
operations for facilities in the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, NBR, and
Butyl Rubber source categories, and HCl
emissions from front-end process
operations in the Ethylene Propylene
Rubber and Butyl Rubber source
categories will vary only by the mass of
polymer product produced, because
there is only one facility in each source
category. The commenters note that the
proposed MACT standards were based
on emissions data and associated
production levels for certain years.
These commenters state that it is not
appropriate to set the standards in this
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22579
way, as it does not allow for variability
in the manufacturing process, or the
potential for the production of different
product mixes and volumes in the
future. One commenter suggests using
2008 emissions, and, perhaps, other
recent years of data in setting the limits.
Another commenter suggests that EPA
look at the statistical variation over
time, and, if EPA revisits the current
subcategorization scheme within the
Butyl Rubber source category, then EPA
should also consider variability in
source design and operation. The
commenter also notes that, over the last
10 years, emissions from back-end
process vents varied by up to 43 percent
from their levels in 2006 due to factors
such as weather conditions, grade slate
changes (such as product grade or slight
variations in product type), and process
and control device reliability/service.
Both commenters submitted additional
emissions data for EPA’s consideration.
Response: We have adjusted the
emissions limits in the final rule to
better account for process variability
and other factors for the front-end
process vent MACT limits in the Butyl
Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber
source categories and the back-end
MACT limits for the Butyl Rubber,
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, and NBR
source categories.10 For the Butyl
Rubber source category, up to 10 years
of annual emissions and annual
production data were submitted for the
two facilities in the source category.
These data showed that the emissions
per unit production varied up to 74
percent higher for HCl from front-end
process vents than that reported in
2010, and varied up to 35 percent higher
for back-end process vents than that
reported for 2009. To account for this
variability, we included a variability
factor of 74 percent over the HCl
emissions per unit production in 2010
in the front-end process operations
limit, and a variability factor of 35
percent over the emissions per unit
production in 2009 in the back-end
process operations limit for this source
category. For the Ethylene Propylene
Rubber source category, historical
annual emissions and annual
production data were submitted for the
one affected facility in the source
category. These data showed that the
emissions per unit production varied up
to 39 percent higher for HCl from frontend process vents than reported in 2010.
To account for this variability, we
included a variability factor of 39
percent over the HCl emissions per unit
production in 2010 in the front-end
10 See Regulatory Alternative Impacts for Group
I Polymers and Resins (March 2011) in the docket.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22580
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
process operations limit. Similarly, for
the NBR source category, historical
annual emissions and production data
were submitted after the comment
period for the one facility in the source
category. While this facility recently
installed emissions control systems
beyond those required to meet the
current MACT requirements, after these
control were in place, the data showed
that emissions per unit production
varied up to 42 percent higher than that
reported for 2009. To account for this
variability, we included a variability
factor of 42 percent over the emissions
per unit production in 2009 in the backend process operations limit for this
source category. For the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers source
category, historical annual emissions
indicative of the expected variation of
emissions was unavailable. Due to the
similarities between the NBR and
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers facilities in
the equipment used, and how they
operate their back-end processes,
however, the same 42-percent
variability factor was applied to the
emissions per unit production in 2009
in the back-end process operations
limit.
Comment: Commenters stated that
EPA should provide an allowance for
maintenance of any thermal oxidizer
required to be installed. One commenter
notes that a regenerative thermal
oxidizer (RTO) requires maintenance
that sometimes necessitates that the
RTO be bypassed. The commenter notes
that back-end process vents at existing
sources in the Butyl Rubber source
category are currently permitted to
allow bypass emissions during
maintenance work on the control device
up to the permitted limit with the use
of purchased Emission Reduction
Credits in Texas, and an allowance for
bypass emissions is included in the unit
operating permit in Louisiana. The
commenter suggests that the MACT
standards for the back-end process vents
should recognize that bypassing
currently occurs for RTO-controlled
emissions, and allow for it in the MACT
standards.
Response: We recognize that
bypassing currently occurs. However,
the Court has made clear that MACT
standards must apply at all times. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735
(U.S. 2010). The emission limits we are
finalizing for the back-end process
operations are in the format of a 12month rolling average, and, therefore,
facilities may bypass only provided that
they are in continuous compliance with
the standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Comment: Commenters requested that
EPA clarify the definition of back-end
processes specifically to exclude
operations that have essentially no HAP
emission potential, such as handling
and storage of finished products. They
stated that it would also be helpful for
the Agency to clarify that surge control
vessels, equipment leaks, storage
vessels, and wastewater, which are
regulated by the Group I Polymers and
Resins MACT, are not included in the
definition of back-end processes.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the proposed
definition of back-end processes was
unclear, and that surge control vessels,
equipment leaks, storage vessels, and
wastewater are regulated in the existing
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
standards, and that handling and storage
of finished products is not part of the
back-end process operations. We have
revised the language in the final rule
accordingly.
Comment: Commenters request
clarification that, in the absence of
allowing 4 years for compliance, the
first compliance demonstration would
be 24 months after the publication date
for emission limits, based on a
12-month rolling average. This would
allow for data collection to begin in the
first month after the compliance date
(13th month after promulgation) and
provide for 1 year of data to be used in
the compliance demonstration. One
commenter requested that compliance
not be determined on less than a 12month basis, because this would limit
the variability allowed for in the rolling
12-month limit.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that compliance should be
determined on a 12-month basis. The
first time 12 months of data will be
available will be in the 13th month after
the compliance date, which is the 25th
month after the publication date. To
demonstrate compliance, the 12-month
rolling average information must be
included in the first periodic report that
occurs after 12 months of data have
been collected. We have clarified the
timing of the compliance demonstration
in the final rule language.
C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations
Comment: Commenters stated that
there were errors in the 2005 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data set, and
that EPA significantly overestimated the
MIR for the MTVLO source category for
each of these facilities due to data
errors.
Response: At proposal, we found that
the current MACT-based standards both
provide an ample margin of safety to
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
protect public health and prevent
adverse environmental effects, and,
therefore, did not make any changes to
the existing standards due to the risk
analysis. We found that three facilities
had MIR greater than 1-in-1 million
(values of 10-, 20-, and 20-in-1 million)
for the MTVLO source category. We
identified two facilities with facilitywide MIR greater than 100–in-1 million
(each with values of 200). Using new
data obtained since proposal, we
corrected the errors noted by the
commenters for both MTVLO emission
sources and other emission sources at
the facilities. We found incorrect
latitudes and longitudes for some
emission sources, incorrect emissions
reported for some sources, or incorrectly
identified HAP. We updated the 2005
NEI data sets for each facility with
corrected data, and conducted a
reanalysis of the risk using the corrected
data set. The revised risk assessment
results show no facilities with MTVLO
have a facility-wide risk of greater than
100-in-1 million.11 Based on 2005
emissions data, MTVLO source category
emissions from one facility result in a
MIR of 50-in-1 million (20 percent from
benzene and 80 percent from
butadiene), however, this facility reports
in its public comments an 89- percent
reduction in benzene emissions and a
97-percent reduction in butadiene
emissions between years 2006 and 2009.
Based on this information, the revised
MIR associated with actual MTVLO
emissions from this facility is less than
1-in-1 million.12 No other facility has
MTVLO emissions resulting in a MIR
greater than 1-in-1 million. The
corrections to the emission data files
and risk results are included in
memoranda in the docket.
Comment: One commenter noted that
it is not clear whether offshore loading
terminals at refineries would be exempt
from proposed changes to MTVLO
MACT. The commenter recommended
rule text changes for 40 CFR
63.560(d)(6). The commenter noted that
their facility may be one of the few (or
only) offshore loading terminals in the
United States, meaning the cost analysis
and controls selected for this
subcategory by the MTVLO MACT
proposal are likely to set a precedent in
the Refinery RTR rule process.
11 Of the two facilities with MTVLO that
previously showed facility-wide risks exceeding
100-in-1 million, the revised risk assessment results
show one facility has facility-wide risks of 70-in-1
million, and the other has facility-wide risks of 40in-1 million.
12 For this facility, reported actual and allowable
emission are the same; therefore, the MIR is the
same for both.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We have considered the
comment and agree that the proposed
rule was not clear. Therefore, this final
rule clarifies applicability for petroleum
refineries.
Comment: Three commenters
supported submerged fill requirements.
One commenter supported the
requirement for submerged fill for
previously-exempt subcategories, and
stated that submerged fill is costeffective. One commenter agreed with
EPA’s decision to establish submerged
fill as the MACT floor. The Commenter
noted that submerged fill, as defined by
the Coast Guard, has been standard
industry practice for some time, reduces
HAP emissions, and eliminates static
electricity from free-falling cargo,
thereby enhancing operational safety.
One commenter suggested that if
additional control is needed, a work
practice standard (submerged fill)
should be adopted for the offshore
loading subcategory instead of 99percent efficient vapor control systems.
Response: The commenters agree with
the proposal to require submerged fill as
the floor level of control for the two
subcategories not previously regulated
(those facilities emitting less than 10/25
TPY of HAP from MTVLO, and those
facilities located more than 0.5 miles
from shore). We have included the
submerged fill requirement in the final
rule.
Comment: One commenter noted the
discussion in the preamble is confusing
concerning whether the proposed
1 million bbl/yr threshold is a MACT
measure, or a reasonably available
control technology (RACT) measure.
The preamble states that the existing
MACT standards require vapor recovery
control for at least 10 million bbl/yr of
gasoline, however, this provision is in
the RACT provisions of the existing
rule. Furthermore, the commenter
asserts that the proposal preamble
justifies the proposed new 1 million
bbl/yr threshold on a volatile organic
compounds (VOC) RACT basis rather
than a HAP (MACT) basis, and describes
the lower threshold as a beyond-thefloor MACT measure for the two
previously-exempt subcategories. In
addition, the commenter noted that the
throughput threshold for a major source
is 5 million bbl/yr, and asked how a
facility only loading 1 million bbl/yr
could be considered a major source, and
subject to MACT. The commenter stated
that the preamble discussion should be
consistent with both the basis presented
for justification of this measure, and the
language of the rule.
Response: The proposed and final
rules only pertain to the MACT
requirements in the rule that address
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
major sources of HAP; no changes were
proposed for the RACT requirements.13
While the commenter noted that a
particular throughput would be required
to define a major source of HAP, the
throughput levels for MTVLO were not
defined with the intent of identifying a
major source. Applicability for the
current rule is two-fold: (1) Is the
facility, as a whole, a major source of
HAP; and (2) does the facility conduct
MTVLO.
We agree that the discussion in the
proposed preamble regarding the
gasoline throughput thresholds used to
analyze the proposed 1 million bbl/yr
gasoline threshold was not clear (75 FR
65115). As discussed below, we have
not included a requirement for MTVLO
facilities with a throughput of 1 million
bbl/yr of gasoline to install and operate
vapor recovery controls in the final rule.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that EPA’s cost-effectiveness
determination for the beyond-the-floor
MACT is flawed/not accurate, and noted
concerns that the cost analysis is based
on information from one vendor, for one
control technology, for a single facility,
and assumed installation costs. One
commenter stated that EPA’s cost
information was limited. One
commenter indicated that beyond-thefloor MACT options must be costeffective in reducing HAP, and since
EPA’s estimated cost was $74,000/ton
HAP emissions reduced, it is not costeffective, and, thus, illegal to
promulgate this requirement as a MACT
measure. The commenter stated that the
real cost, based on corrected values of
HAP content, would be $180,000/ton
HAP emissions reduced. The
commenter requested that EPA rescind
the proposed action.
Commenters stated that the EPA does
not have the authority to consider nonHAP emission reductions in conducting
a review of existing MACT standards
under CAA section 112(d). The
commenters noted that, in setting
MACT standards, the CAA expressly
forbids EPA from considering the cobenefits of non-HAP emissions
reductions, and the MACT floor must be
based on the HAP emission reductions
achieved; any beyond-the-floor standard
may be based only on consideration of
the cost of achieving HAP emission
reductions, and any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements.
Response: As discussed earlier, we
established and proposed the MACT
13 RACT and MACT requirements are both
included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y—National
Emission Standards of Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22581
floor as submerged fill for the two
subcategories not previously regulated
(facilities emitting less than 10/25 TPY
of HAP from MTVLO, and those
‘‘offshore’’ facilities located more than
0.5 miles from shore). Additionally,
under the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review of the existing
MTVLO MACT, and as setting the
beyond-the-floor MACT standards for
the two subcategories not previously
regulated, we proposed that existing
facilities loading 1 million bbl/yr of
gasoline, install vapor controls either
meeting 97-percent control, or the
equivalent emission limit of 10 mg/l (10
milligrams of total organic compound
emissions per liter of gasoline loaded).
At proposal, we estimated the cost and
emissions reductions for installing
vapor controls for facilities loading
1 million bbl/yr of gasoline, and we
estimated a cost of $74,000/ton HAP
emissions reduction (190 TPY HAP
emissions reduction) and $5,500/ton
VOC emissions reduction (2,600 TPY
VOC emissions reduction).
As discussed in the cost section of the
response to comment and the cost
memoranda in the docket, we received
and considered the comments on the
control costs, emission rate differences
for ships and barges, additional costs for
offshore facilities, and the HAP content
in gasoline. All those factors change the
cost-effectiveness calculations. Based on
information received as part of the
comments, we reevaluated the costs
used at proposal. The revised costs and
emissions for the proposed threshold of
1 million bbl/yr gasoline are as high as
$500,000 per ton of HAP emissions
reduced (1.9 tons of HAP reduced
annually per facility) for loading ships
offshore. Looking at a less stringent
threshold for the final rule of 7 million
bbl/yr of gasoline loaded would likely
achieve little or no HAP or VOC
emission reductions, since many
facilities near that threshold were
required to install controls under the
current rule. We agree with commenters
that these costs are unreasonable.
Therefore, we are not including the
proposed vapor controls for loading 1
million bbl/yr of gasoline requirement
in the final rule. We disagree with the
commenter that we cannot consider
VOC benefits, but, given that we are not
requiring these additional vapor
controls for HAP, the issue is now moot.
Comment: One commenter stated that
VOC and HAP emission rates from ships
and barges at their facility are lower
than EPA uses in its cost-effectiveness
determinations. EPA used the
uncontrolled gasoline loading emissions
factor for barges (3.4 pounds (lb) VOC/
1,000 gallons (gal) loaded), but should
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22582
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
use the emissions factor for ocean-going
ships and barges (1.8 lb VOC/1,000 gal
loaded); AP–42 notes in Chapter 5 that
vapor saturation is much lower in ship
and barge loading.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the emission factors for
ships and barges, as applicable to the
type of marine vessel being loaded,
should be considered for estimating
VOC and HAP emissions. We have
revised the emission estimates using the
barge and ship emission factors from
AP–42.
Comment: One commenter noted that
HAP content in the vapor phase is 3.0
percent, and not the 7.3 percent
determined by EPA in the proposal. The
commenter provided the analysis
showing the calculations, based on
conventional gasoline, where the
commenter assumed no methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) in the gasoline; no
change to the total partial pressure; and
benzene concentration of 1.8 percent.
Another commenter stated the HAP
emissions factor is approximately 50
percent of the EPA factor.
Response: In the proposal, we
determined that the HAP content in the
vapor phase of gasoline of 7.3 percent
(based on 2006 gasoline composition)
was appropriate, and used 7.3 percent
in our emissions estimates for gasoline
loading at MTVLO. We reviewed and
considered the data provided by the
commenter, and reviewed HAP content
information from several other sources
that have more recent gasoline
composition data. We conducted a
reanalysis of the HAP content, looking
at both conventional and reformulated
gasoline, considering the phase-out of
MTBE and the requirements for reduced
benzene content. Based on the revised
analysis, we concluded that a good
typical value for HAP content in the
vapor is 5.0 percent. The revised
analysis of HAP content in gasoline is
in a memorandum in the docket.
Comment: Commenters argued that
lean oil absorption technology is not
capable of meeting the rule efficiency, is
not in common use for MTVLO, and
must be demonstrated as an effective
technology for MTVLO. One commenter
cited an instance where lean oil
absorption installed on MTVLO was
unable to meet control requirements in
their permit. The commenter stated that
lean oil absorption is typically used in
smaller applications. Commenters stated
that EPA must provide actual
performance data for lean oil absorption
technology in the MTVLO source
category.
Response: Lean oil absorption systems
are not new control technologies for
MTVLO. Lean oil absorption was
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
discussed as a vapor recovery device, in
addition to refrigeration (condenser)
systems and carbon adsorption systems,
for marine vessel loading in the 1987
National Research Council, Committee
on Control and Recovery of
Hydrocarbons Vapors from Ships and
Barges report, Controlling Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Tank Vessel Loading.
Lean oil absorption also was discussed
in the 1992 proposal, Technical Support
Document for MTVLO (EPA–450/3–92–
001a), and has been installed as vapor
recovery devices for MTVLO. While we
have not selected a beyond-the-floor
option as MACT, we would like to
clarify that lean oil absorption systems
were included in the cost analysis for
the beyond-the-floor option, because
lean oil absorption systems achieving an
emission reduction efficiency of 97
percent are used by at least one MTVLO
facility, and because the units are a
relatively less expensive control
technology option that has the added
benefit of recovered product.
D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
(SSM) Requirements
Comment: Two commenters state that
EPA offers little support for the
assertion that it is reasonable to
interpret CAA section 112 as not
requiring EPA to account for
malfunctions in setting emissions
standards, or that malfunctions are not
a distinct operating mode. The
commenters state that it does not make
sense for EPA to assert that
malfunctions are part of normal
operations, but then exclude emissions
from these parts of normal operations in
the determination of the emissions
limits. The commenters state that, due
to the unplanned nature and variety of
potential malfunctions, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, for EPA to
gather data and set an emissions
standard for periods of malfunction.
Due to these difficulties, the
commenters suggest that, under the
authority of CAA section 112(h), EPA
prescribe alternative design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standards
where it is not feasible to set or enforce
a numerical emissions limit. The
commenters add that there are work
practices that can be identified as being
the best to minimize emissions during a
malfunction, and EPA must
acknowledge the fact that even the bestperforming sources experience
malfunction events.
Response: EPA has determined that
CAA section 112 does not require that
emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction be factored into
development of CAA section 112
standards. Under CAA section 112,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level
‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar
source, and for existing sources,
generally, must be no less stringent than
the average emission limitation
‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12
percent of sources in the category. There
is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider
malfunctions in determining the level
‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or
best controlled sources when setting
emission standards. Moreover, while
EPA accounts for variability in setting
emissions standards consistent with the
CAA section 112 case law, nothing in
that case law requires the Agency to
consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis.
CAA section 112 uses the concept of
‘‘best controlled’’ and ‘‘best performing’’
unit in defining the level of stringency
that CAA section 112 performance
standards must meet. Applying the
concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ or ‘‘best
performing’’ to a unit that is
malfunctioning presents significant
difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden
and unexpected events. Accounting for
malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different
types of malfunctions that can occur
across all sources in the category, and
given the difficulties associated with
predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of
various malfunctions that might occur.
As such, the performance of units that
are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We
generally defer to an agency’s decision
to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to
‘‘invest the resources to conduct the
perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even
any upset provision can anticipate all
upset situations. After a certain point,
the transgression of regulatory limits
caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third
parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a
matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by
regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a
best controlled or best performing
source is to operate in such a way as to
avoid malfunctions of the source, and
accounting for malfunctions could lead
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
to standards that are significantly less
stringent than levels that are achieved
by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. EPA’s approach
to malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112, and is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute.
Comment: Several commenters argued
that emissions limits should not apply
during SSM events, while other
commenters stated that SSM emissions
should be included in calculations of
emissions and standards. Commenters
suggested that requiring continuous
compliance during periods of SSM
constitutes beyond-the-floor
requirements, and the Agency should
have to justify this more stringent level
of control, because facilities would need
to install redundant control systems and
bypass systems. They further stated that,
in order to assure that SSM are
appropriately accommodated, EPA must
either assure that the data on which the
standard is based include representative
data from such periods, or, alternatively,
set a separate work practice standard to
properly accommodate SSM, and they
cited case law supporting establishment
of special SSM provisions. Further,
several commenters stated that
compliance with emissions standards
during malfunction events will be
difficult to gauge since emissions testing
during such events is nearly impossible,
given the sporadic and unpredictable
nature of malfunctions. The commenters
contended that the rules could have the
effect of forcing units to choose between
safety and compliance with emissions
requirements. The commenters stated
that, for some affected units,
malfunctions, by their very nature,
create unsafe conditions which can lead
to excessive combustible mixtures that
can result in explosions, equipment
damage, and personnel hazards.
Commenters also noted that some of the
MACT standards included in this action
did not rely exclusively upon the
General Provisions, and, thus, were not
immediately affected by the Court’s
vacatur of the SSM exemptions in the
General Provisions. The commenters
pointed out that, given that these
categories were not immediately
affected, EPA is not compelled to
remove the exemptions that are
established within these individual
category-specific MACT standards.
Other commenters expressed support
for requiring continuous compliance
with the MACT standards, including
periods of SSM. They noted that
malfunctions are also preventable, and,
thus, there should be no relief from the
standards during these events.
Response: At this time, we are not
promulgating separate emission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
standards for periods of startup and
shutdown for three of the four categories
addressed in this rule, because we
believe compliance with the standards
is achievable during these periods. In
the case of the Pharmaceuticals
Production MACT standards, we expect
the difference in emission levels during
periods of startup and shutdown are
insignificant, and that facilities in this
source category should be able to
comply with the standards during these
times. In the case of the Printing and
Publishing MACT standards, we believe
there are sufficiently long averaging
times incorporated into the emissions
limits that facilities should be able to
comply during periods of startup and
shutdown. In the case of MTVLO,
loading of marine tank vessels occurs in
‘‘batches,’’ and general practice is for the
loading operators to test out the vapor
control system before it is attached to
the tank vessel. In the case of Group I
Polymers and Resins, one commenter
stated that organic HAP emissions that
are required to be sent to emissions
control equipment (i.e., flares) may not
be able to comply with the MACT
standards during periods of shutdown.
The commenter stated that they may not
always be able to route some of their
process vents to a flare during periods
of shutdown due to low pressure or low
heat content in the process vent. EPA
agrees with the commenter that it is not
possible to comply with the applicable
standard during periods of shutdown,
and is establishing alternative emissions
standards that apply during these
periods.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
However, by contrast, malfunction is
defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and
not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner * * *’’ (40 CFR
60.2). EPA has determined that
malfunctions should not be viewed as a
distinct operating mode, and, therefore,
any emissions that occur at such times
do not need to be factored into
development of CAA section 112
standards, which, once promulgated,
apply at all times. Also refer to section
III.E of this preamble, and the response
to comments document available in the
docket for this action for additional
discussion of this issue.
Comment: Commenters on the Group
I Polymers and Resins MACT disagreed
with EPA’s statement that the proposed
rules will reduce the reporting burden
associated with having to prepare and
submit an SSM report. The commenters
also state that the claims EPA makes
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22583
that EPA is not proposing any new
paperwork requirements is false if a
facility wants to claim an affirmative
defense. The affirmative defense
provision contains much more onerous
reporting and implied recordkeeping
requirements than the existing rules.
The commenters state that EPA needs to
account for the information collection
burden associated with affirmative
defense in the Information Collection
Request (ICR) for the SSM portion of the
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT,
and otherwise comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
Response: As discussed in section
VII.B of this preamble, EPA is providing
the public with an estimate of the
relative magnitude of the burden
associated with an assertion of the
affirmative defense position adopted by
a source, and is providing
administrative adjustments to the ICR
for the MACT standards subject to these
final rules that show what the
notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements associated with
the assertion of the affirmative defense
might entail.
Comment: Two commenters note that,
in making changes to the rules to
exclude the SSM exemption and add the
general duty clause to the MACT
standards, three of the six MACT
standards in the proposal include the
statement that ‘‘the general duty to
minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by this standard have been
achieved,’’ but the other three do not
(i.e., Group I Polymers and Resins,
MTLVO, and Printing and Publishing
Industry MACT standards). The
commenters state that this clarifying
language should be included in all six
standards.
Response: We agree that this language
should be included in each of the six
MACT standards, and we have added
this clarifying language to 40 CFR
63.823(b) in the Printing and Publishing
Industry MACT standards and 40 CFR
63.562(e) in the MTVLO MACT
standards. However, we find that 40
CFR 63.483 in the Group 1 Polymers
and Resins MACT standards already
includes this language, and we have not
revised the proposed language.
VI. Impacts of the Final Rules
The final changes to the Group I
Polymers and Resins, MTVLO,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and the
Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards are not estimated to have any
significant emission reductions, costs,
or other impacts.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22584
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ This
action is a significant regulatory action
because it raises novel legal and policy
issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in the final rules have
been submitted for approval to OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are
based on notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A), which are
mandatory for all operators subject to
national emission standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized
by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
These final rules would require
maintenance inspections of the control
devices, but would not require any
notifications or reports beyond those
required by the General Provisions. The
recordkeeping requirements require
only the specific information needed to
determine compliance.
When a malfunction occurs, sources
must report them according to the
applicable reporting requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subparts U, Y, KK, and
GGG. An affirmative defense to civil
penalties for exceedances of emission
limits that are caused by malfunctions is
available to a source if it can
demonstrate that certain criteria and
requirements are satisfied. The criteria
ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that
causes an exceedance of the emission
limit meets the narrow definition of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonable preventable,
and not caused by poor maintenance
and or careless operation) and where the
source took necessary actions to
minimize emissions. In addition, the
source must meet certain notification
and reporting requirements. For
example, the source must prepare a
written root cause analysis and submit
a written report to the Administrator
documenting that it has met the
conditions and requirements for
assertion of the affirmative defense.
For two of the rules promulgated,
National Emissions Standards for Group
I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber
Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber
Production, HypalonTM Production,
Neoprene Production, NBR Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production,
Polysulfide Rubber Production, and
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production); and Pharmaceuticals
Production, EPA is adding affirmative
defense to the estimate of burden in the
ICR. To provide the public with an
estimate of the relative magnitude of the
burden associated with an assertion of
the affirmative defense position adopted
by a source, EPA has provided
administrative adjustments to these two
ICR that show what the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements associated with the
assertion of the affirmative defense
might entail. EPA’s estimate for the
required notification, reports, and
records, including the root cause
analysis, totals $3,141, and is based on
the time and effort required of a source
to review relevant data, interview plant
employees, and document the events
surrounding a malfunction that has
caused an exceedance of an emission
limit. The estimate also includes time to
produce and retain the record and
reports for submission to EPA. EPA
provides this illustrative estimate of this
burden, because these costs are only
incurred if there has been a violation,
and a source chooses to take advantage
of the affirmative defense.
Given the variety of circumstances
under which malfunctions could occur,
as well as differences among sources’
operation and maintenance practices,
we cannot reliably predict the severity
and frequency of malfunction-related
excess emissions events for a particular
source. It is important to note that EPA
has no basis currently for estimating the
number of malfunctions that would
qualify for an affirmative defense.
Current historical records would be an
inappropriate basis, as source owners or
operators previously operated their
facilities in recognition that they were
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exempt from the requirement to comply
with emissions standards during
malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emission events reported by source
operators, only a small number would
be expected to result from a malfunction
(based on the definition above), and
only a subset of excess emissions caused
by malfunctions would result in the
source choosing to assert the affirmative
defense. Thus, we believe the number of
instances in which source operators
might be expected to avail themselves of
the affirmative defense will be
extremely small. For this reason, we
estimate no more than 2 or 3 such
occurrences for all sources subject to 40
CFR part 63, subparts U and GGG over
the 3-year period covered by this ICR.
We expect to gather information on such
events in the future, and will revise this
estimate as better information becomes
available.
With respect to MTVLO and Printing
and Publishing source categories,
operations would not proceed or
continue if there is a malfunction of a
control device, and, thus, it is unlikely
that a control device malfunction would
cause an exceedance of any emission
limit. The existing MTVLO rule requires
the vapor displaced during loading of
the vessel be sent to vapor processors
that meet specified efficiency standards.
In discussions with industry, and at
plant visits, the industry reports that
marine vessels are not allowed to start
loading until the vapor collection and
processor system has been thoroughly
checked for proper operation. If the
loading equipment, and the vapor
collection and possessor system are not
properly operating, the vessel is not
allowed to load. In addition, if processor
system settings are not maintained
during vessel loading, loading is
automatically stopped. Therefore, we
believe there is no burden to the
industry for the affirmative defense
provisions added to the final rule.
Additionally, an ICR document (number
1679.08) was prepared and submitted
for the October 21, 2010, proposed rule
that included burdens associated with
testing, reporting, and recordkeeping for
the proposed lowering of the threshold
for when additional vapor collection
and processor systems are required. In
this action we are not requiring the
lower threshold for additional vapor
collection and processor systems.
However, submerged fill requirements
are added in the final rule, and are
already being met under Coast Guard
rules; thus, there is no additional ICR
burden associated with the final rule for
MTVLO.
For Printing and Publishing, we do
not believe that printing and publishing
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
facilities have excess emissions caused
by malfunctions. Printing presses and
control devices are interlocked. If the
control device is not operating, the press
cannot start printing. If the control
device stops operating, the press stops
printing. Also, given the characteristics
of the affected units at printing and
publishing sources, EPA does not
believe that any other type of
malfunction could conceivably cause
excess emissions.
Therefore, sources within these two
source categories are not expected to
have any need or use for the affirmative
defense. Thus, for these source
categories, EPA is not assigning any
burden associated with affirmative
defense.
For the Group I Polymers and Resins
MACT standards, an ICR document
prepared by EPA for the amendments to
the standards has been assigned EPA
ICR number 2410.02, which has been
revised since the proposed estimate
assigned EPA ICR number 2410.01.
Burden changes associated with these
amendments result from the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of the
affirmative defense provisions added to
the rule; the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with the new back-end process
operation emission limits for
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, Neoprene
Rubber, NBR, and Butyl Rubber
Production source categories; and the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the new
HCl emission limits for the front-end
process vents for the Ethylene
Propylene Rubber and Butyl Rubber
Production source categories. The
respondents’ annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standards) for these
amendments is estimated to be 251
labor hours at a cost of $12,222 per year.
The annual burden for the Federal
government (averaged over the first
3 years after the effective date of the
standard) for these amendments is
estimated to be 9 labor hours at a cost
of $408 per year.
For the Pharmaceuticals Production
MACT standards ICR document
prepared by EPA, which has been
revised to include the amendments to
the standards, has been assigned EPA
ICR number 1781.06. Burden changes
associated with these amendments
result from the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
affirmative defense provisions added to
the rule. The change in respondents’
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden associated with these
amendments for this collection
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
(averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standards) is
estimated to be 20 labor hours at a cost
of $2,094 per year. There is no estimated
change in annual burden to the Federal
government for these amendments.
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 EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
these ICR are approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control numbers for the approved
information collection requirements
contained in the final rules.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act, or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact
of these final rules on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any notfor-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of these final rules on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This final action will not impose any
requirements on small entities. These
final rules will not change the level of
any emission standard, or impose
emission measurements or reporting
requirements on small entities beyond
those specified in existing regulations.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
These rules do not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, these rules are not subject to the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22585
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
These rules are also not subject to the
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. They contain no
requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations
upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. These final
rules primarily affect private industry,
and do not impose significant economic
costs on State or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). It will not have substantial direct
effect on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action will not relax the
control measures on existing regulated
sources, and EPA’s risk assessments
(included in the docket for the proposed
rules) demonstrate that the existing
regulations are health protective.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)),
because it is not likely to have a
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22586
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
significant adverse energy effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This action will not create any new
requirements for sources in the energy
supply, distribution, or use sectors.
Further, we have concluded that these
final rules are not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable VCS.
This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
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.
EPA has determined that these final
rules will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations, because they
do not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the
environment. To examine the potential
for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with each source
category, we evaluated the distributions
of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer
risks across different social,
demographic, and economic groups
within the populations living near the
facilities where these source categories
are located. Our analyses also show that,
for all the source categories evaluated,
there is no potential for an adverse
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
environmental effect or human health
multipathway effects, and that acute
and chronic non-cancer health impacts
are unlikely. Our additional analysis of
facility-wide risks showed that the
maximum facility-wide cancer risks for
all source categories are within the
range of acceptable risks, and that the
maximum chronic non-cancer risks are
unlikely to cause health impacts. Our
additional analysis of the demographics
of the exposed population may show
disparities in risks between
demographic groups for all three
categories, but EPA has determined that,
although there may be a disparity in
risks between demographic groups, no
group is exposed to unacceptable level
of risk.
The rules will not relax the control
measures on emissions sources
regulated by the rules, and, therefore,
will not increase risks to any
populations exposed to these emissions
sources.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that, before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing these final rules and
other required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the final rules in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rules will
be effective on April 21, 2011.
List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency amends title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart U—[Amended]
2. Section 63.480 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.480 Applicability and designation of
affected sources.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Applicability of this subpart.
Paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this
section shall be followed during periods
of non-operation of the affected source
or any part thereof.
(1) The emission limitations set forth
in this subpart and the emission
limitations referred to in this subpart
shall apply at all times except during
periods of non-operation of the affected
source (or specific portion thereof)
resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. However, if
a period of non-operation of one portion
of an affected source does not affect the
ability of a particular emission point to
comply with the emission limitations to
which it is subject, then that emission
point shall still be required to comply
with the applicable emission limitations
of this subpart during the period of nonoperation. For example, if there is an
overpressure in the reactor area, a
storage vessel that is part of the affected
source would still be required to be
controlled in accordance with the
emission limitations in § 63.484.
(2) The emission limitations set forth
in subpart H of this part, as referred to
in § 63.502, shall apply at all times,
except during periods of non-operation
of the affected source (or specific
portion thereof) in which the lines are
drained and depressurized, resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which
§ 63.502 applies.
(3) The owner or operator shall not
shut down items of equipment that are
required or utilized for compliance with
this subpart during times when
emissions (or, where applicable,
wastewater streams or residuals) are
being routed to such items of equipment
if the shutdown would contravene
requirements of this subpart applicable
to such items of equipment.
(4) In response to an action to enforce
the standards set forth in this subpart,
an owner or operator may assert an
affirmative defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such
standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in § 63.2.
Appropriate penalties may be assessed,
however, if the owner or operator fails
to meet the burden of proving all the
requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be
available for claims for injunctive relief.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(i) To establish the affirmative defense
in any action to enforce such a limit, the
owners or operators of a facility must
timely meet the notification
requirements of paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of
this section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused
by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been
prevented through careful planning,
proper design, or better operation and
maintenance practices; did not stem
from any activity or event that could
have been foreseen and avoided, or
planned for; and were not part of a
recurring pattern indicative of
inadequate design, operation, or
maintenance;
(B) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs;
(C) The frequency, amount, and
duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions;
(D) If the excess emissions resulted
from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property
damage;
(E) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment, and human health;
(F) All emissions monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation,
if at all possible, consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices;
(G) All of the actions in response to
the excess emissions were documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs;
(H) At all times, the facility was
operated in a manner consistent with
good practices for minimizing
emissions; and
(I) The owner or operator has
prepared a written root cause analysis,
the purpose of which is to determine,
correct, and eliminate the primary
causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the
malfunction event at issue. The analysis
shall also specify, using the best
monitoring methods and engineering
judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the
malfunction.
(ii) Notification. The owner or
operator of the facility experiencing an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
exceedance of its emission limit(s)
during a malfunction shall notify the
Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible,
but no later than 2 business days after
the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself
of an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for that malfunction. The
owner or operator seeking to assert an
affirmative defense shall also submit a
written report to the Administrator
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance of the standard in this
subpart to demonstrate, with all
necessary supporting documentation,
that it has met the requirements set forth
in paragraph (j)(4)(i) of this section. The
owner or operator may seek an
extension of this deadline for up to 30
additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the
expiration of the 45 day period. Until a
request for an extension has been
approved by the Administrator, the
owner or operator is subject to the
requirement to submit such report
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance.
3. Section 63.481 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.481 Compliance dates and
relationship of this subpart to existing
applicable rules.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) With the exceptions provided in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section, existing affected sources shall
be in compliance with this subpart no
later than June 19, 2001, as provided in
§ 63.6(c), unless an extension has been
granted as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(1) Existing affected sources
producing epichlorohydrin elastomer,
butyl rubber, neoprene rubber, and
nitrile butadiene rubber shall be in
compliance with the applicable
emission limitation in § 63.494(a)(4) no
later than April 23, 2012.
(2) Existing affected sources
producing butyl rubber and ethylene
propylene rubber shall be in compliance
with § 63.485(q)(1) no later than April
23, 2012.
(3) Compliance with § 63.502 is
covered by paragraph (d) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 63.482 is amended by
removing the definition of ‘‘halobutyl
rubber,’’ adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘affirmative defense,’’
revising the definitions of ‘‘back-end,’’
‘‘butyl rubber,’’ ‘‘elastomer product,’’
‘‘initial start-up,’’ and ‘‘product’’ in
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 63.482
22587
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or a defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
*
*
*
*
*
Back-end refers to the unit operations
in an EPPU following the stripping
operations. Back-end process operations
include, but are not limited to, filtering,
coagulation, blending, concentration,
drying, separating, and other finishing
operations, as well as latex and crumb
storage. Back-end does not include
storage and loading of finished product
or emission points that are regulated
under §§ 63.484, 63.501, or 63.502 of
this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Butyl rubber means a copolymer of
isobutylene and other monomers.
Typical other monomers include
isoprene and methylstyrene. A typical
composition of butyl rubber is
approximately 85- to 99-percent
isobutylene, and 1- to 15-percent other
monomers. Most butyl rubber is
produced by precipitation
polymerization, although other methods
may be used. Halobutyl rubber is a type
of butyl rubber elastomer produced
using halogenated copolymers.
*
*
*
*
*
Elastomer product means one of the
following types of products, as they are
defined in this section:
(1) Butyl Rubber;
(2) Epichlorohydrin Elastomer;
(3) Ethylene Propylene Rubber;
(4) Hypalon TM;
(5) Neoprene;
(6) Nitrile Butadiene Rubber;
(7) Nitrile Butadiene Latex;
(8) Polybutadiene Rubber/Styrene
Butadiene Rubber by Solution;
(9) Polysulfide Rubber;
(10) Styrene Butadiene Rubber by
Emulsion; and
(11) Styrene Butadiene Latex.
*
*
*
*
*
Initial start-up means the first time a
new or reconstructed affected source
begins production of an elastomer
product, or, for equipment added or
changed as described in § 63.480(i), the
first time the equipment is put into
operation to produce an elastomer
product. Initial start-up does not
include operation solely for testing
equipment. Initial start-up does not
include subsequent start-ups of an
affected source or portion thereof
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22588
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
§ 63.483
Emission standards.
(a) At all times, each owner or
operator must operate and maintain any
affected source subject to the
requirements of this subpart, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by this standard have
been achieved. Determination of
whether such operation and
maintenance procedures are being used
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. Except as
allowed under paragraphs (b) through
(d) of this section, the owner or operator
of an existing or new affected source
shall comply with the provisions in:
(1) Section 63.484 for storage vessels;
(2) Section 63.485 for continuous
front-end process vents;
(3) Sections 63.486 through 63.492 for
batch front-end process vents;
(4) Sections 63.493 through 63.500 for
back-end process operations;
(5) Section 63.501 for wastewater;
(6) Section 63.502 for equipment
leaks;
(7) Section 63.504 for additional test
methods and procedures;
(8) Section 63.505 for monitoring
levels and excursions; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
(9) Section 63.506 for general
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 63.484 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 63.484
Storage vessel provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Storage vessels located
downstream of the stripping operations
at affected sources subject to the backend residual organic HAP limitation
located in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3),
that are complying through the use of
stripping technology, as specified in
§ 63.495;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 63.485 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (q)
introductory text, and (q)(1)
introductory text;
■ b. Adding paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)
through (q)(1)(vi); and
■ c. Adding paragraph (w) to read as
follows:
§ 63.485 Continuous front-end process
vent provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Group 1 halogenated continuous
front-end process vents must comply
with the provisions of § 63.113(a)(1)(ii)
and § 63.113(c), with the exceptions
noted in paragraphs (q)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Group I halogenated continuous
front-end process vents at existing
affected sources producing butyl rubber
or ethylene propylene rubber using a
solution process are exempt from the
provisions of § 63.113(a)(1)(ii) and
§ 63.113(c) if the conditions in
paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section are met, and shall comply with
the requirements in paragraphs
(q)(1)(iii) through (vi) of this section.
Group I halogenated continuous frontend process vents at new affected
sources producing butyl rubber or
ethylene propylene rubber using a
solution process are not exempt from
§ 63.113(a)(1)(ii) and § 63.113(c).
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) The average HCl emissions from
all front-end process operations at
affected sources producing butyl rubber
and ethylene propylene rubber using a
solution process shall not exceed the
limits determined in accordance with
paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this
section for any consecutive 12-month
period. The specific limitation for each
elastomer type shall be determined
based on the calculation or the
emissions level provided in paragraphs
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section
divided by the base year elastomer
product that leaves the stripping
operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant
has no stripper(s)). The limitation shall
be calculated and submitted in
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of
this section.
(A) For butyl rubber, the HCl emission
limitation shall be calculated using the
following equation:
Where:
HCl2010 = HCl emissions in 2010, megagrams
per year (Mg/yr)
BRHClEL = Butyl rubber HCl emission limit,
Mg HCl emissions/Mg butyl rubber
produced
P2010 = Total elastomer product leaving the
stripper in 2010, Mg/yr
1.74 = variability factor, unitless
(B) For ethylene propylene rubber
using a solution process, the HCl
emission limitation, in units of Mg HCl
emissions per Mg of ethylene propylene
rubber produced, shall be calculated by
dividing 27 Mg/yr by the mass of
ethylene propylene rubber produced in
2010, in Mg.
(iv) If the front-end process operation
is subject to a HCl emission limitation
in paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this section,
the owner and operator must submit the
information specified in paragraphs
(q)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The applicable HCl emission
limitation determined in accordance
with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of
this section shall be submitted no later
than 180 days from the date of
publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register.
(B) Beginning with the first periodic
report required to be submitted by
§ 63.506(e)(6) that is at least 13 months
after the compliance date, the total mass
of HCl emitted for each of the rolling
12-month periods in the reporting
period divided by the total mass of
elastomer produced during the
corresponding 12-month period,
determined in accordance with
paragraph (q)(1)(v) of this section.
(v) Compliance with the HCl emission
limitations determined in accordance
with paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this section
shall be demonstrated in accordance
with paragraphs (q)(1)(v)(A) through (E)
of this section.
(A) Calculate your HCl emission
limitation in accordance with
paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this
section, as applicable, record it, and
submit it in accordance with paragraph
(q)(1)(iv) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
ER21AP11.002</GPH>
following shutdowns, or following
changes in product for flexible
operation units, or following recharging
of equipment in batch operation.
*
*
*
*
*
Product means a polymer produced
using the same monomers, and varying
in additives (e.g., initiators, terminators,
etc.); catalysts; or in the relative
proportions of monomers, that is
manufactured by a process unit. With
respect to polymers, more than one
recipe may be used to produce the same
product, and there can be more than one
grade of a product. As an example,
styrene butadiene latex and butyl rubber
each represent a different product.
Product also means a chemical that is
not a polymer, is manufactured by a
process unit. By-products, isolated
intermediates, impurities, wastes, and
trace contaminants are not considered
products.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 63.483 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(B) Each month, calculate and record
the HCl emissions from all front-end
process operations using engineering
assessment. Engineering assessment
includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
(1) Use of material balances;
(2) Estimation of flow rate based on
physical equipment design, such as
pump or blower capacities;
(3) Estimation of HCl concentrations
based on saturation conditions; and
(4) Estimation of HCl concentrations
based on grab samples of the liquid or
vapor.
(C) Each month, record the mass of
elastomer product produced.
(D) Each month, calculate and record
the sum of the HCl emissions and the
mass of elastomer produced for the
previous calendar 12-month period.
(E) Each month, divide the total mass
of HCl emitted for the previous calendar
12-month period by the total mass of
elastomer produced during this
12-month period. This value must be
recorded in accordance with paragraph
(q)(1)(vi) of this section and reported in
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of
this section.
(vi) If the front-end process operation
is subject to an HCl emission limitation
in paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this section,
the owner or operator shall maintain the
records specified in paragraphs
(q)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) The applicable HCl emission
limitation determined in accordance
with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of
this section.
(B) The HCl emissions from all frontend process operations for each month,
along with documentation of all
calculations, and other information used
in the engineering assessment to
estimate these emissions.
(C) The mass of elastomer product
produced each month.
(D) The total mass of HCl emitted for
each 12-month period divided by the
total mass of elastomer produced during
the 12-month period, determined in
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(v) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(w) Shutdown. (1) During periods of
shutdown, a Group 1 continuous frontend process vent at an existing affected
source producing butyl rubber or
ethylene propylene rubber using a
solution process must be routed to a
flare until either the organic HAP
concentration in the vent is less than 50
ppmv, or the vent pressure is below
103.421 kPa.
■ 8. Section 63.489 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) to read as
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
§ 63.489 Batch front-end process vents—
monitoring equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The owner or operator may
prepare and implement a gas stream
flow determination plan that documents
an appropriate method which will be
used to determine the gas stream flow.
The plan shall require determination of
gas stream flow by a method which will
at least provide a value for either a
representative or the highest gas stream
flow anticipated in the scrubber during
representative operating conditions. The
plan shall include a description of the
methodology to be followed and an
explanation of how the selected
methodology will reliably determine the
gas stream flow, and a description of the
records that will be maintained to
document the determination of gas
stream flow. The owner or operator
shall maintain the plan as specified in
§ 63.506(a).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 63.491 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 63.491 Batch front-end process vents—
recordkeeping requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Monitoring data recorded during
periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero (low-level) and high-level
adjustments shall not be included in
computing the batch cycle daily
averages. In addition, monitoring data
recorded during periods of nonoperation of the EPPU (or specific
portion thereof) resulting in cessation of
organic HAP emissions shall not be
included in computing the batch cycle
daily averages.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 63.493 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.493
Back-end process provisions.
Owners and operators of new and
existing affected sources shall comply
with the requirements in §§ 63.494
through 63.500. Owners and operators
of affected sources whose only
elastomer products are latex products,
liquid rubber products, or products
produced in a gas-phased reaction
process, are not subject to the provisions
of §§ 63.494 through 63.500. If latex or
liquid rubber products are produced in
an affected source that also produces
another elastomer product, the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22589
provisions of §§ 63.494 through 63.500
do not apply to the back-end operations
dedicated to the production of one or
more latex products, or to the back-end
operations during the production of a
latex product. Table 8 to this subpart
contains a summary of compliance
alternative requirements for the
emission limits in § 63.494(a)(1)–(3) and
associated requirements.
■ 11. Section 63.494 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the section heading;
■ b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(5)
introductory text;
■ e. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
■ f. Revising paragraph (b);
■ g. Revising paragraph (c); and
■ h. Revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 63.494 Back-end process provisions—
residual organic HAP and emission
limitations.
(a) The monthly weighted average
residual organic HAP content of all
grades of styrene butadiene rubber
produced by the emulsion process,
polybutadiene rubber and styrene
butadiene rubber produced by the
solution process, and ethylenepropylene rubber produced by the
solution process that is processed, shall
be measured after the stripping
operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant
has no stripper(s)), as specified in
§ 63.495(d), and shall not exceed the
limits provided in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section, as applicable.
Owners or operators of these affected
sources shall comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section using either
stripping technology, or control or
recovery devices. The organic HAP
emissions from all back-end process
operations at affected sources producing
butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin
elastomer, neoprene, and nitrile
butadiene rubber shall not exceed the
limits determined in accordance with
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, as
applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) The organic HAP emissions from
back-end processes at affected sources
producing butyl rubber,
epichlorohydrin elastomer, neoprene,
and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not
exceed the limits determined in
accordance with paragraphs (a)(4)(i)
through (iv) of this section for any
consecutive 12-month period. The
specific limitation for each elastomer
type shall be determined based on the
calculation or the emissions level
provided in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22590
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(i) For butyl rubber, the organic HAP
emission limitation shall be calculated
using the following equation:
process other than a solution process, or
ethylene-propylene rubber produced by
any process other than a solution
process.
(b) If an owner or operator complies
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through
(3) of this section using stripping
technology, compliance shall be
demonstrated in accordance with
§ 63.495. The owner or operator shall
also comply with the recordkeeping
provisions in § 63.498, and the reporting
provisions in § 63.499.
(c) If an owner or operator complies
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through
(3) of this section using control or
recovery devices, compliance shall be
demonstrated using the procedures in
§ 63.496. The owner or operator shall
also comply with the monitoring
provisions in § 63.497, the
recordkeeping provisions in § 63.498,
and the reporting provisions in § 63.499.
(d) If the owner or operator complies
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through
(3) of this section using a flare, the
owner or operator of an affected source
shall comply with the requirements in
§ 63.504(c).
■ 12. Section 63.495 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the section heading;
■ b. Revising paragraph (a);
■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(5); and
■ d. Adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
process is in operation. A single
monthly weighted average shall be
determined for all back-end process
operations at the affected source.
(b) * * *
(5) The monthly weighted average
shall be determined using the equation
in paragraph (f) of this section. All
representative samples taken and
analyzed during the month shall be
used in the determination of the
monthly weighted average.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Compliance with the organic HAP
emission limitations determined in
accordance with § 63.494(a)(4) shall be
demonstrated in accordance with
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Calculate your organic HAP
emission limitation in accordance with
§ 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), as
applicable, record it, and submit it in
accordance with § 63.499(f)(1).
(2) Each month, calculate and record
the organic HAP emissions from all
back-end process operations using
engineering assessment. Engineering
assessment includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
(i) Previous test results, provided the
test was representative of current
operating practices.
(ii) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data
obtained under conditions
representative of current process
operating conditions.
(iii) Design analysis based on
accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process
parameters, or physical or chemical
laws or properties. Examples of
analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(A) Use of material balances;
(B) Estimation of flow rate based on
physical equipment design, such as
pump or blower capacities;
(C) Estimation of organic HAP
concentrations based on saturation
conditions; and
(D) Estimation of organic HAP
concentrations based on grab samples of
the liquid or vapor.
(3) Each month, record the mass of
elastomer product produced.
(4) Each month, calculate and record
the sums of the organic HAP emissions
(ii) For epichlorohydrin elastomer, the
organic HAP emission limitation, in
units of Mg organic HAP emissions per
Mg of epichlorohydrin elastomer
produced, shall be calculated by
dividing 51 Mg/yr by the mass of
epichlorohydrin elastomer produced in
2009, in Mg.
(iii) For neoprene, the organic HAP
emission limitation, in units of Mg
organic HAP emissions per Mg of
neoprene produced, shall be calculated
by dividing 30 Mg/yr by the mass of
neoprene produced in 2007, in Mg.
(iv) For nitrile butadiene rubber, the
organic HAP emission limitation, in
units of Mg organic HAP emissions per
Mg of nitrile butadiene rubber
produced, shall be calculated by
dividing 2.4 Mg/yr by the mass of nitrile
butadiene rubber produced in 2009, in
Mg.
(5) For EPPU that produce both an
elastomer product with a residual
organic HAP limitation listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section, and a product listed in
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this
section, only the residual HAP content
of the elastomer product with a residual
organic HAP limitation shall be used in
determining the monthly average
residual organic HAP content.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) There are no back-end process
operation residual organic HAP or
emission limitations for Hypalon TM and
polysulfide rubber production. There
are also no back-end process operation
residual organic HAP limitations for
latex products, liquid rubber products,
products produced in a gas-phased
reaction process, styrene butadiene
rubber produced by any process other
than a solution or emulsion process,
polybutadiene rubber produced by any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
§ 63.495 Back-end process provisions—
procedures to determine compliance with
residual organic HAP limitations using
stripping technology and organic HAP
emissions limitations.
(a) If an owner or operator complies
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3)
using stripping technology, compliance
shall be demonstrated using the
periodic sampling procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section, or using
the stripper parameter monitoring
procedures in paragraph (c) of this
section. The owner or operator shall
determine the monthly weighted
average residual organic HAP content
for each month in which any portion of
the back-end of an elastomer production
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
ER21AP11.003</GPH>
limitation shall be calculated and
submitted in accordance with
§ 63.499(f)(1).
Where:
Be2009 = Bypass emissions in 2009, Mg/yr
BREL = Butyl rubber emission limit, Mg
organic HAP emissions/Mg butyl rubber
produced
Ce2009 = Controlled emissions in 2009,
Mg/yr
P2009 = Total elastomer product leaving the
stripper in 2009, Mg/yr
UCe2009 = Uncontrolled emissions in 2009,
Mg/yr
1.35 = variability factor, unitless
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
(iv) of this section divided by the base
year elastomer product that leaves the
stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if
the plant has no stripper(s)). The
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and the mass of elastomer produced for
the previous calendar 12-month period.
(5) Each month, divide the total mass
of organic HAP emitted for the previous
calendar 12-month period by the total
mass of elastomer produced during this
12-month period. This value must be
recorded in accordance with § 63.498(e)
and reported in accordance with
§ 63.499(f)(2).
13. Section 63.496 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraph (a);
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
■
■
■
■
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
(a) If an owner or operator complies
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3)
using control or recovery devices,
compliance shall be demonstrated using
the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section. Previous test results
conducted in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section may be used to determine
compliance in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) A facility is in compliance if the
average of the organic HAP contents
calculated for all three test runs is below
the residual organic HAP limitations in
§ 63.494(a)(1) through (3).
(d) An owner or operator complying
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3)
using a control or recovery device, shall
redetermine the compliance status
through the requirements described in
paragraph (b) of this section whenever
process changes are made. The owner or
operator shall report the results of the
redetermination in accordance with
§ 63.499(d). For the purposes of this
section, a process change is any action
that would reasonably be expected to
impair the performance of the control or
recovery device. For the purposes of this
section, the production of an elastomer
with a residual organic HAP content
greater than the residual organic HAP
content of the elastomer used in the
compliance demonstration constitutes a
process change, unless the overall effect
of the change is to reduce organic HAP
emissions from the source as a whole.
Other examples of process changes may
include changes in production capacity
or production rate, or removal or
addition of equipment. For the purposes
of this paragraph, process changes do
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
14. Section 63.497 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text; and
■ c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
text to read as follows:
■
■
■
§ 63.497 Back-end process provisions—
monitoring provisions for control and
recovery devices used to comply with
residual organic HAP limitations.
§ 63.496 Back-end process provisions—
procedures to determine compliance with
residual organic HAP limitations using
control or recovery devices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
not include: Process upsets;
unintentional, temporary process
changes; or changes that reduce the
residual organic HAP content of the
elastomer.
(a) An owner or operator complying
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3)
using control or recovery devices, or a
combination of stripping and control or
recovery devices, shall install the
monitoring equipment specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section, as appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The owner or operator of an
affected source with a controlled backend process vent using a vent system
that contains bypass lines that could
divert a vent stream away from the
control or recovery device used to
comply with § 63.494(a)(1) through (3),
shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) or
(2) of this section. Equipment such as
low leg drains, high point bleeds,
analyzer vents, open-ended valves or
lines, and pressure relief valves needed
for safety purposes are not subject to
this paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
15. Section 63.498 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
■ d. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text;
■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
■ f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text;
■ g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
text;
■ h. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B);
■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(E); and
■ j. Adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 63.498 Back-end process provisions—
recordkeeping.
(a) Each owner or operator shall
maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), and
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section, as appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) If the back-end process operation
is subject to a residual organic HAP
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22591
limitation in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3),
whether compliance will be achieved by
stripping technology, or by control or
recovery devices.
(4) If the back-end process operation
is subject to an emission limitation in
§ 63.494(a)(4), the organic HAP emission
limitation calculated in accordance with
§ 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), as
applicable.
(b) Each owner or operator of a backend process operation using stripping
technology to comply with a residual
organic HAP limitation in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3), and demonstrating
compliance using the periodic sampling
procedures in § 63.495(b), shall
maintain the records specified in
paragraph (b)(1), and in paragraph (b)(2)
or paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as
appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) If the organic HAP contents for all
samples analyzed during a month are
below the appropriate level in
§ 63.494(a), the owner or operator may
record that all samples were in
accordance with the residual organic
HAP limitations in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3), rather than calculating and
recording a monthly weighted average.
(c) Each owner or operator of a backend process operation using stripping
technology to comply with a residual
organic HAP limitation in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3), and demonstrating
compliance using the stripper parameter
monitoring procedures in § 63.495(c),
shall maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Each owner or operator of a backend process operation using control or
recovery devices to comply with a
residual organic HAP limitation in
§ 63.494(a)(1) through (3), shall
maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this
section. The recordkeeping
requirements contained in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (4) pertain to the results
of the testing required by § 63.496(b), for
each of the three required test runs.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Monitoring data recorded during
periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero (low-level) and high-level
adjustments, shall not be included in
computing the hourly or daily averages.
In addition, monitoring data recorded
during periods of non-operation of the
EPPU (or specific portion thereof)
resulting in cessation of organic HAP
emissions, shall not be included in
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22592
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
computing the hourly or daily averages.
Records shall be kept of the times and
durations of all such periods and any
other periods of process or control
device operation when monitors are not
operating.
*
*
*
*
*
(E) For flares, records of the times and
duration of all periods during which the
pilot flame is absent, shall be kept rather
than daily averages. The records
specified in this paragraph are not
required during periods when emissions
are not routed to the flare.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If the back-end process operation
is subject to an organic HAP emission
limitation in § 63.494(a)(4), the records
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) The applicable organic HAP
emission limitation determined in
accordance with § 63.494(a)(4)(i)
through (iv).
(2) The organic HAP emissions from
all back-end process operations for each
month, along with documentation of all
calculations and other information used
in the engineering assessment to
estimate these emissions.
(3) The mass of elastomer product
produced each month.
(4) The total mass of organic HAP
emitted for each 12-month period
divided by the total mass of elastomer
produced during the 12-month period,
determined in accordance with
§ 63.495(g)(5).
16. Section 63.499 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text;
■ c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text;
■ d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
text; and
■ e. Adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
■
■
■
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
§ 63.499 Back-end process provisions—
reporting.
(a) * * *
(3) If the back-end process operation
is subject to a residual organic HAP
limitation in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3),
whether compliance will be achieved by
stripping technology, or by control or
recovery devices.
(b) Each owner or operator of a backend process operation using stripping to
comply with a residual organic HAP
limitation in § 63.494(a)(1) through (3),
and demonstrating compliance by
stripper parameter monitoring, shall
submit reports as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Each owner or operator of an
affected source with a back-end process
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
operation control or recovery device
that shall comply with a residual
organic HAP limitation in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3), shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section as part
of the Notification of Compliance Status
specified in § 63.506(e)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Whenever a process change, as
defined in § 63.496(d), is made that
causes the redetermination of the
compliance status for the back-end
process operations subject to a residual
organic HAP limitation in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3), the owner or operator shall
submit a report within 180 days after
the process change, as specified in
§ 63.506(e)(7)(iii). The report shall
include:
*
*
*
*
*
(f) If the back-end process operation is
subject to an organic HAP emission
limitation in § 63.494(a)(4), the owner
and operator must submit the
information specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The applicable organic HAP
emission limitation determined in
accordance with § 63.494(a)(4)(i)
through (iv), shall be submitted no later
than 180 days from the date of
publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register.
(2) Beginning with the first periodic
report required to be submitted by
§ 63.506(e)(6) that is at least 13 months
after the compliance date, the total mass
of organic HAP emitted for each of the
rolling 12-month periods in the
reporting period divided by the total
mass of elastomer produced during the
corresponding 12-month period,
determined in accordance with
§ 63.495(g)(5).
17. Section 63.501 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.501
Wastewater provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Back-end streams at affected
sources that are subject to a residual
organic HAP limitation in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3) and that are complying with
these limitations through the use of
stripping technology.
■ 18. Section 63.502 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to read
as follows:
§ 63.502 Equipment leak and heat
exchange system provisions.
(a) Equipment leak provisions. The
owner or operator of each affected
source, shall comply with the
requirements of subpart H of this part,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the exceptions noted in paragraphs
(b) through (m) of this section. Surge
control vessels required to be controlled
by subpart H may, alternatively, comply
with the Group 1 storage vessel
provisions specified in § 63.484.
(b) * * *
(4) Surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers located downstream of the
stripping operations at affected sources
subject to the back-end residual organic
HAP limitation located in § 63.494(a)(1)
through (3) that are complying through
the use of stripping technology, as
specified in § 63.495;
*
*
*
*
*
§ 63.503—[Amended]
19. Section 63.503 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (f)(1).
■ 20. Section 63.504 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory
text to read as follows:
■
§ 63.504 Additional requirements for
performance testing.
(a) * * *
(1) Performance tests shall be
conducted at maximum representative
operating conditions achievable during
one of the time periods described in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section,
without causing any of the situations
described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section to occur. Upon request, the
owner or operator shall make available
to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 21. Section 63.505 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (e)(4);
■ b. Revising paragraph (g)(1)
introductory text;
■ c. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(A);
■ d. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(B);
■ e. Removing paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(C)
through (g)(1)(v)(E);
■ f. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B)
introductory text; and
■ g. Adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
§ 63.505 Parameter monitoring levels and
excursions.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) An owner or operator complying
with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of § 63.494 using stripping, and
demonstrating compliance by stripper
parameter monitoring, shall redetermine
the residual organic HAP content for all
affected grades whenever process
changes are made. For the purposes of
this section, a process change is any
action that would reasonably be
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
expected to impair the performance of
the stripping operation. For the
purposes of this section, examples of
process changes may include changes in
production capacity or production rate,
or removal or addition of equipment.
For purposes of this paragraph, process
changes do not include: Process upsets;
unintentional, temporary process
changes; or changes that reduce the
residual organic HAP content of the
elastomer.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) With respect to storage vessels
(where the applicable monitoring plan
specifies continuous monitoring),
continuous front-end process vents,
aggregate batch vent streams, back-end
process operations complying with
§ 63.494(a)(1) through (3) through the
use of control or recovery devices, and
process wastewater streams, an
excursion means any of the three cases
listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(g)(1)(iii) of this section. * * *
(v) * * *
(A) Monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero
(low-level) and high-level adjustments;
or
(B) Periods of non-operation of the
affected source (or portion thereof),
resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which the monitoring applies.
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Subtract the time during the
periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero (low-level) and high-level
adjustments from the total amount of
time determined in paragraph
(g)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain the
operating time used to determine if
monitoring data are insufficient.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Excursion definition for back-end
operations subject to § 63.494(a)(4). An
excursion means when the total mass of
organic HAP emitted for any
consecutive 12-month period divided by
the total mass of elastomer produced
during the 12-month period, determined
in accordance with § 63.495(g), is
greater than the applicable emission
limitation, determined in accordance
with § 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv) and
submitted in accordance with
§ 63.499(f)(1).
■ 22. Section 63.506 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)
introductory text;
■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(3)
introductory text;
■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph
(e)(3)(viii);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
e. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B);
f. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(E);
g. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i);
h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(C);
i. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii);
j. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iii);
k. Removing and reserving paragraph
(h)(2)(iv)(A); and
■ l. Adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
§ 63.506 General recordkeeping and
reporting provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Malfunction records. Each owner
or operator of an affected source subject
to this subpart shall maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of operation (i.e., process
equipment), air pollution control
equipment, or monitoring equipment.
Each owner or operator shall maintain
records of actions taken during periods
of malfunction to minimize emissions in
accordance with § 63.483(a)(1),
including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(7) Monitoring data recorded during
periods identified in paragraphs (d)(7)(i)
and (ii) of this section shall not be
included in any average computed
under this subpart. Records shall be
kept of the times and durations of all
such periods and any other periods
during process or control device or
recovery device operation when
monitors are not operating.
(i) Monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero
(low-level) and high-level adjustments;
or
(ii) Periods of non-operation of the
affected source (or portion thereof),
resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which the monitoring applies.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) Precompliance Report. Owners or
operators of affected sources requesting
an extension for compliance; requesting
approval to use alternative monitoring
parameters, alternative continuous
monitoring and recordkeeping, or
alternative controls; requesting approval
to use engineering assessment to
estimate emissions from a batch
emissions episode, as described in
§ 63.488(b)(6)(i); wishing to establish
parameter monitoring levels according
to the procedures contained in
§ 63.505(c) or (d); shall submit a
Precompliance Report according to the
schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i)
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22593
of this section. The Precompliance
Report shall contain the information
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through
(vii) of this section, as appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) [Reserved]
(ix) * * *
(B) Supplements to the Precompliance
Report may be submitted to request
approval to use alternative monitoring
parameters, as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(iii) of this section; to use
alternative continuous monitoring and
recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(iv) of this section; to use
alternative controls, as specified in
paragraph (e)(3)(v) of this section; to use
engineering assessment to estimate
emissions from a batch emissions
episode, as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(vi) of this section; or to establish
parameter monitoring levels according
to the procedures contained in
§ 63.505(c) or (d), as specified in
paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) The number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction
which occurred during the reporting
period and which caused or may have
caused any applicable emission
limitation to be exceeded. The report
must also include a description of
actions taken by an owner or operator
during a malfunction of an affected
source to minimize emissions in
accordance with § 63.483(a)(1),
including actions taken to correct a
malfunction.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The monitoring system is capable
of detecting unrealistic or impossible
data during periods of normal operation
(e.g., a temperature reading of ¥200 °C
on a boiler), and will alert the operator
by alarm or other means. The owner or
operator shall record the occurrence. All
instances of the alarm or other alert in
an operating day constitute a single
occurrence.
(ii) * * *
(C) The running average reflects a
period of normal operation.
(iii) The monitoring system is capable
of detecting unchanging data during
periods of normal operation, except in
circumstances where the presence of
unchanging data is the expected
operating condition based on past
experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers),
and will alert the operator by alarm or
other means. The owner or operator
shall record the occurrence. All
instances of the alarm or other alert in
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22594
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
an operating day constitute a single
occurrence.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(iii) The owner or operator shall retain
the records specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, for
the duration specified in paragraph (h)
of this section. For any calendar week,
if compliance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section does not
result in retention of a record of at least
one occurrence or measured parameter
value, the owner or operator shall
record and retain at least one parameter
value during a period of normal
operation.
(iv) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(i)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as
defined in § 63.2 and as required in this
subpart, you must submit performance
test data, except opacity data,
electronically to EPA’s Central Data
Exchange by using the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert
tool.html/) or other compatible
electronic spreadsheet. Only data
collected using test methods compatible
with ERT are subject to this requirement
to be submitted electronically into
EPA’s WebFIRE database.
(2) All reports required by this
subpart not subject to the requirements
in paragraphs (i)(1) of this section must
be sent to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator
and the owner or operator of a source,
these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of
reports subject to paragraph (i)(1) of this
section in paper format.
■ 23. Table 1 to Subpart U of part 63 is
amended by:
■ a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
■ b. Revising entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and
63.6(e)(1)(ii);
■ c. Revising entry 63.6(e)(2);
■ d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3);
■ e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i)
through 63.6(e)(3)(ix);
■ f. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); and
■ g. Revising entries 63.7(e)(1) and
63.10(d)(5)(i) to read as follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART U OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART U AFFECTED SOURCES
Reference
Applies to subpart U
Explanation
*
*
*
*
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ........................................................ No .............................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ........................................................
*
*
*
See § 63.483(a)(1) for general duty requirement. Any cross reference
to § 63.6(e)(1)(i) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross reference to § 63.483(a)(1).
No.
*
*
*
*
§ 63.6(e)(2) ............................................................ No .............................
§ 63.6(e)(3) ............................................................ No.
§ 63.6(f)(1) ............................................................. No.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 63.7(e)(1) ............................................................ No .............................
*
*
*
63.10(d)(5)(i) ......................................................... No.
*
*
*
*
[Reserved.].
*
*
*
See § 63.504(a)(1). Any cross-reference to § 63.7(e)(1) in any other
general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a
cross-reference to § 63.504(a)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
24. Table 5 to Subpart U of part 63 is
revised to read as follows:
■
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART U OF PART 63—KNOWN ORGANIC HAP EMITTED FROM THE PRODUCTION OF ELASTOMER
PRODUCTS
[Known organic HAP emitted from the production of elastomer products]
Elastomer product/subcategory
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Organic HAP/Chemical name (CAS
No.)
BR
EPI
EPR
HYP
NEO
NBL
NBR
PBR/
SBRS
PSR
SBL
SBRE
Acrylonitrile (107131) .......................
1,3 Butadiene (106990) ...................
Carbon Disulfide ...............................
Carbon Tetrachloride (56235) ..........
Chlorobenzene (108907) .................
Chloroform (67663) ..........................
Chloroprene (126998) ......................
Epichlorohydrin (106898) .................
Ethylbenzene (100414) ....................
Ethylene Dichloride (107062) ...........
Ethylene Oxide (75218) ...................
Formaldehyde (50000) .....................
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
X
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
X
X
............
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22595
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART U OF PART 63—KNOWN ORGANIC HAP EMITTED FROM THE PRODUCTION OF ELASTOMER
PRODUCTS—Continued
[Known organic HAP emitted from the production of elastomer products]
Elastomer product/subcategory
Organic HAP/Chemical name (CAS
No.)
BR
EPI
EPR
HYP
NEO
NBL
NBR
PBR/
SBRS
PSR
SBL
SBRE
Hexane (110543) .............................
Methanol (67561) .............................
Methyl Chloride (74873) ...................
Propylene Oxide (75569) .................
Styrene (100425) .............................
Toluene (108883) .............................
Xylenes (1330207) ...........................
Xylene (m-) (108383) .......................
Xylene (o-) (95476) ..........................
Xylene (p-) (106423) ........................
X
X
X
............
............
............
X
X
X
X
............
............
............
X
............
X
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
X
............
............
X
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
X
............
............
............
............
............
CAS No. = Chemical Abstract Service Number.
BR = Butyl Rubber.
EPI = Epichlorohydrin Rubber.
EPR = Ethylene Propylene Rubber.
HYP = HypalonTM.
NEO = Neoprene.
NBL = Nitrile Butadiene Latex.
NBR = Nitrile Butadiene Rubber.
PBR/SBRS = Polybutadiene and Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Solution.
PSR = Polysulfide Rubber.
SBL = Styrene Butadiene Latex.
SBRE = Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion.
Subpart Y—[Amended]
25–26. Section 63.560 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
b. Revising paragraph (d)(6); and
c. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read
as follows:
■ d. Table 1 to subpart Y of part 63 is
amended by:
■ 1. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1);
■ 2. Removing entry 63.7(e);
■ 3. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and
63.7(e)(2)–(4);
■ 4. Removing entries 63.8(c)(1)(i),
63.8(c)(1)(ii), and 63.(c)(1)(iii);
■ 5. Adding entry 63.8(c)(1);
■ 6. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(i);
■ 7. Adding entry 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii);
■ 8. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(ii)–(iii);
■
■
■
■
9. Adding entry 63.10(b)(2)(iii);
10. Removing entry 63.10(c)(10)–(13);
and
■ 11. Adding entries 63.10(c)(10)–(11)
and 63.10(c)(12)–(13).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 63.560 Applicability and designation of
affected source.
(a) * * *
(4) Existing sources with emissions
less than 10 and 25 tons must meet the
submerged fill standards of 46 CFR
153.282. This submerged fill
requirement does not apply to
petroleum refineries.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(6) The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to marine tank vessel loading
operations at existing offshore loading
terminals, as that term is defined in
§ 63.561, however existing offshore
loading terminals must meet the
submerged fill standards of 46 CFR
153.282.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Existing sources with emissions
less than 10 and 25 tons, and existing
offshore loading terminals, shall comply
with the submerged fill requirements in
paragraph (a)(4) and (d)(6) of this
section by April 23, 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 OF § 63.560—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART Y
Applies to
affected sources in
subpart Y
Reference
*
*
*
63.6(f)(1) ............................................................... No.
Comment
*
*
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
63.7(e)(1) .............................................................. No .............................
63.7(e)(2)–(4) ........................................................
63.8(c)(1) ..............................................................
*
*
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
*
Jkt 223001
*
*
*
*
See 63.563(b)(1). Any cross reference to 63.7(e)(1) in any other
general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a
cross-reference to 63.563(b)(1).
Yes.
No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) ................................................... No .............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
*
*
*
*
*
See 63.567(m).
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22596
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 OF § 63.560—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART Y—Continued
Applies to
affected sources in
subpart Y
Reference
*
*
*
63.10(b)(2)(iii) ....................................................... Yes.
Comment
*
*
*
*
*
*
63.10(c)(10)–(11) .................................................. No .............................
63.10(c)(12)–(13) ..................................................
*
*
27. Section 63.561 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order a definition
for ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to read as
follows:
§ 63.561
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or a defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 28. Section 63.562 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory
text; and
■ b. Adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as
follows:
§ 63.562
Standards.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Operation and maintenance
requirements for air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment
for affected sources. At all times, owners
or operators of affected sources shall
operate and maintain a source,
including associated air pollution
control equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operation and
maintenance procedures are being used
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.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) In response to an action to enforce
the standards set forth in this subpart,
you may assert an affirmative defense to
a claim for civil penalties for
exceedances of such standards that are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
*
*
*
*
See 63.567(m) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to
63.10(c)(10) or 63.10(c)(11) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to
63.567(m).
Yes.
*
■
*
*
*
caused by a malfunction, as defined in
§ 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if the respondent
fails to meet its burden of proving all
the requirements in the affirmative
defense. The affirmative defense shall
not be available for claims for injunctive
relief.
(i) To establish the affirmative defense
in any action to enforce such a limit, the
owners or operators of a facility must
timely meet the notification
requirements of paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of
this section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused
by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been
prevented through careful planning,
proper design or better operation and
maintenance practices; and did not stem
from any activity or event that could
have been foreseen and avoided, or
planned for; and were not part of a
recurring pattern indicative of
inadequate design, operation, or
maintenance;
(B) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs;
(C) The frequency, amount and
duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions;
(D) If the excess emissions resulted
from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property
damage;
(E) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
*
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment, and human health;
(F) All emissions monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation
if at all possible, consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices;
(G) All of the actions in response to
the excess emissions were documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs;
(H) At all times, the affected facility
was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing
emissions; and
(I) The owner or operator has
prepared a written root cause analysis,
the purpose of which is to determine,
correct, and eliminate the primary
causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the
malfunction event at issue. The analysis
shall also specify, using the best
monitoring methods and engineering
judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the
malfunction.
(ii) Notification. The owner or
operator of the facility experiencing an
exceedance of its emission limit(s)
during a malfunction shall notify the
Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible,
but no later than 2 business days after
the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself
of an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for that malfunction. The
owner or operator seeking to assert an
affirmative defense shall also submit a
written report to the Administrator
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance of the standard in this
subpart to demonstrate, with all
necessary supporting documentation,
that it has met the requirements set forth
in paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this section. The
owner or operator may seek an
extension of this deadline for up to 30
additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
expiration of the 45 day period. Until a
request for an extension has been
approved by the Administrator, the
owner or operator is subject to the
requirement to submit such report
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance.
29. Section 63.563 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.563
testing.
Compliance and performance
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Initial performance test. An initial
performance test shall be conducted
using the procedures listed in § 63.7 of
subpart A of this part according to the
applicability in Table 1 of § 63.560, the
procedures listed in this section, and
the test methods listed in § 63.565. The
initial performance test shall be
conducted within 180 days after the
compliance date for the specific affected
source. During this performance test,
sources subject to MACT standards
under § 63.562(b)(2), (3), (4), and (5),
and (d)(2) shall determine the reduction
of HAP emissions, as VOC, for all
combustion or recovery devices other
than flares. Performance tests shall be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative
performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Upon request,
the owner or operator shall make
available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of
performance tests. Sources subject to
RACT standards under § 63.562(c)(3),
(4), and (5), and (d)(2) shall determine
the reduction of VOC emissions for all
combustion or recovery devices other
than flares.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 30. Section 63.567 is amended by
adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as
follows:
§ 63.567 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(m) The number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction
which occurred during the reporting
period and which caused or may have
caused any applicable emission
limitation to be exceeded shall be stated
in a semiannual report. The report must
also include a description of actions
taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to
minimize emissions in accordance with
§ 63.562(e), including actions taken to
correct a malfunction. The report, to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
certified by the owner or operator or
other responsible official, shall be
submitted semiannually and delivered
or postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each calendar half.
(n)(1) As of January 1, 2012 and
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as
defined in § 63.2, and as required in this
subpart, you must submit performance
test data, except opacity data,
electronically to EPA’s Central Data
Exchange by using the ERT (see
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert
tool.html/) or other compatible
electronic spreadsheet. Only data
collected using test methods compatible
with ERT are subject to this requirement
to be submitted electronically into
EPA’s WebFIRE database.
(2) All reports required by this
subpart not subject to the requirements
in paragraph (n)(1) of this section must
be sent to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator
and the owner or operator of a source,
these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of
reports subject to paragraph (n)(1) of
this section in paper format.
Subpart KK—[Amended]
31. Section 63.820 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.820
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In response to an action to enforce
the standards set forth in this subpart,
an owner or operator may assert an
affirmative defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such
standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in § 63.2.
Appropriate penalties may be assessed,
however, if the owner or operator fails
to meet the burden of proving all the
requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be
available for claims for injunctive relief.
(1) To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a
limit, the owners or operators of a
facility must timely meet the
notification requirements of paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, and must prove by
a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions were caused
by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual
manner; and could not have been
prevented through careful planning,
proper design or better operation and
maintenance practices; and did not stem
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
22597
from any activity or event that could
have been foreseen and avoided, or
planned for; and were not part of a
recurring pattern indicative of
inadequate design, operation, or
maintenance;
(ii) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs;
(iii) The frequency, amount, and
duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions;
(iv) If the excess emissions resulted
from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property
damage;
(v) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment, and human health;
(vi) All emissions monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation,
if at all possible, consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices;
(vii) All of the actions in response to
the excess emissions were documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs;
(viii) At all times, the facility was
operated in a manner consistent with
good practices for minimizing
emissions; and
(ix) The owner or operator has
prepared a written root cause analysis,
the purpose of which is to determine,
correct and eliminate the primary
causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the
malfunction event at issue. The analysis
shall also specify, using the best
monitoring methods and engineering
judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the
malfunction.
(2) Notification. The owner or
operator of the facility experiencing an
exceedance of its emission limit(s)
during a malfunction shall notify the
Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible,
but no later than 2 business days after
the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself
of an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for that malfunction. The
owner or operator seeking to assert an
affirmative defense shall also submit a
written report to the Administrator
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance of the standard in this
subpart to demonstrate, with all
necessary supporting documentation,
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22598
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
that it has met the requirements set forth
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The
owner or operator may seek an
extension of this deadline for up to 30
additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the
expiration of the 45 day period. Until a
request for an extension has been
approved by the Administrator, the
owner or operator is subject to the
requirement to submit such report
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance.
32. Section 63.822 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order a definition
for ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
■
§ 63.822
Definitions.
(a) * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or a defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 33. Section 63.823 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.823
Standards: General.
(a) Table 1 to this subpart provides
cross references to the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, general provisions,
indicating the applicability of the
general provisions requirements to this
subpart KK.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
affected source subject to this subpart
must at all times operate and maintain
that affected source, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether such operation and
maintenance procedures are being used
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.
34. Section 63.827 is amended by
adding introductory text to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.827
Performance test methods.
Performance tests shall be conducted
under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative
performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Upon request,
the owner or operator shall make
available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of
performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 35. Section 63.829 is amended by
adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as
follows:
§ 63.829
Recordkeeping requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Each owner or operator of an
affected source subject to this subpart
shall maintain records of the occurrence
and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment), air
pollution control equipment, or
monitoring equipment.
(h) Each owner or operator of an
affected source subject to this subpart
shall maintain records of actions taken
during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with
§ 63.823(b), including corrective actions
to restore malfunctioning process and
air pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
36. Section 63.830 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(5);
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(6)(v); and
■ c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 63.830
Reporting requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(v) The number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction
which occurred during the reporting
period and which caused or may have
caused any applicable emission
limitation to be exceeded. The report
must also include a description of
actions taken by an owner or operator
during a malfunction of an affected
source to minimize emissions in
accordance with § 63.823(b), including
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(c)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as
defined in § 63.2 and as required in this
subpart, you must submit performance
test data, except opacity data,
electronically to EPA’s Central Data
Exchange by using the ERT (see
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert
tool.html/) or other compatible
electronic spreadsheet. Only data
collected using test methods compatible
with ERT are subject to this requirement
to be submitted electronically into
EPA’s WebFIRE database.
(2) All reports required by this
subpart not subject to the requirements
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must
be sent to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator
and the owner or operator of a source,
these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of
reports subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section in paper format.
37. Table 1 to Subpart KK of part 63
is amended by:
■ a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
■ b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i),
63.6(e)(1)(ii); 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2),
and 63.6(e)(3);
■ c. Removing entry 63.6(f);
■ d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and
63.6(f)(2)–(f)(3);
■ e. Removing entry 63.7;
■ f. Adding entries 63.7(a)–(d),
63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4);
■ g. Removing entry 63.8(d)–(f);
■ h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)–(2),
63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)–(f);
■ i. Removing entries 63.10(b)(1)–(b)(3),
63.10(c)(10)–(c)(15), and 63.10(d)(4)–
(d)(5);
■ j. Adding entries 63.10(b)(1),
63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii),
63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v),
63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv), 63.10(b)(3),
63.10(c)(10), 63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)–
(c)(14), 63.10(c)(15), 63.10(d)(4), and
63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:
■
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KK
General provisons
reference
Applicable to subpart KK
*
*
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ..................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Comment
*
*
*
*
*
No .................................................. See 63.823(b) for general duty requirement. Any cross-reference to
63.6(e)(1)(i) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to 63.823(b).
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22599
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KK—Continued
General provisons
reference
Applicable to subpart KK
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .................................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................
§ 63.6(e)(2) .....................................
§ 63.6(e)(3) .....................................
§ 63.6(f)(1) ......................................
§ 63.6(f)(2)–(f)(3) ............................
No.
Yes.
No ..................................................
No.
No.
Yes.
*
*
§ 63.7(a)–(d) ...................................
§ 63.7(e)(1) .....................................
§ 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ..........................
*
*
*
*
*
Yes.
No .................................................. See 63.827 introductory text. Any cross-reference to 63.7(e)(1) in any
other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated
as a cross-reference to 63.827 introductory text.
Yes.
*
*
§ 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ..............................
§ 63.8(d)(3) .....................................
§ 63.8(e)–(f) ....................................
*
Yes.
Yes, except for last sentence.
Yes.
*
*
§ 63.10(b)(1) ...................................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...............................
*
*
*
*
*
Yes.
No.
No .................................................. See 63.829(g) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions. See 63.829(h) for recordkeeping of actions taken during
malfunction. Any cross-reference to 63.10(b)(2)(ii) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a crossreference to 63.829(g).
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ..............................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ...............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ............
§ 63.10(b)(3) ...................................
*
*
§ 63.10(c)(10) .................................
Comment
Section reserved.
*
*
*
*
§ 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ....................
§ 63.10(c)(15) .................................
*
*
*
*
*
No .................................................. See 63.830(b)(6)(v) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to
63.10(c)(10) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to 63.830(b)(6)(v).
No .................................................. See 63.830(b)(6)(v) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to
63.10(c)(11) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to 63.830(b)(6)(v).
Yes.
No.
*
*
§ 63.10(d)(4) ...................................
§ 63.10(d)(5) ...................................
Yes.
No.
§ 63.10(c)(11) .................................
*
*
Subpart GGG—[Amended]
38. Section 63.1250 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.1250
Applicability.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Applicability of this subpart. (1)
Each provision set forth in this subpart
shall apply at all times, except that the
provisions set forth in § 63.1255 of this
subpart shall not apply during periods
of nonoperation of the PMPU (or
specific portion thereof) in which the
lines are drained and depressurized
resulting in the cessation of the
emissions to which § 63.1255 of this
subpart applies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The owner or operator shall not
shut down items of equipment that are
required or utilized for compliance with
the emissions limitations of this subpart
during times when emissions (or, where
applicable, wastewater streams or
residuals) are being routed to such items
of equipment, if the shutdown would
contravene emissions limitations of this
subpart applicable to such items of
equipment. This paragraph does not
apply if the owner or operator must shut
down the equipment to avoid damage to
a PMPU or portion thereof.
(3) At all times, each owner or
operator must operate and maintain any
affected source subject to the
requirements of this subpart, including
associated air pollution control
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by this standard have
been achieved. Determination of
whether such operation and
maintenance procedures are being used
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.
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
22600
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(4) In response to an action to enforce
the standards set forth in this subpart,
an owner or operator may assert an
affirmative defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such
standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in § 63.2.
Appropriate penalties may be assessed,
however, if owner or operator fails to
meet the burden of proving all the
requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be
available for claims for injunctive relief.
(i) To establish the affirmative defense
in any action to enforce such a limit, the
owners or operators of a facility must
timely meet the notification
requirements of paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of
this section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused
by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been
prevented through careful planning,
proper design, or better operation and
maintenance practices; and did not stem
from any activity or event that could
have been foreseen and avoided, or
planned for; and were not part of a
recurring pattern indicative of
inadequate design, operation, or
maintenance;
(B) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs;
(C) The frequency, amount, and
duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions;
(D) If the excess emissions resulted
from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property
damage;
(E) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment, and human health;
(F) All emissions monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation
if at all possible, consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices;
(G) All of the actions in response to
the excess emissions were documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs;
(H) At all times, the facility was
operated in a manner consistent with
good practices for minimizing
emissions; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
(I) The owner or operator has
prepared a written root cause analysis,
the purpose of which is to determine,
correct, and eliminate the primary
causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the
malfunction event at issue. The analysis
shall also specify, using the best
monitoring methods and engineering
judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the
malfunction.
(ii) Notification. The owner or
operator of the facility experiencing an
exceedance of its emission limit(s)
during a malfunction shall notify the
Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible,
but no later than 2 business days after
the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself
of an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for that malfunction. The
owner or operator seeking to assert an
affirmative defense shall also submit a
written report to the Administrator
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance of the standard in this
subpart to demonstrate, with all
necessary supporting documentation,
that it has met the requirements set forth
in paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section. The
owner or operator may seek an
extension of this deadline for up to 30
additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the
expiration of the 45 day period. Until a
request for an extension has been
approved by the Administrator, the
owner or operator is subject to the
requirement to submit such report
within 45 days of the initial occurrence
of the exceedance.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 39. Section 63.1251 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order a definition
for ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to read as
follows:
§ 63.1251
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or a defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 40. Section 63.1255 is amended by
revising paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A) to read as
follows:
§ 63.1255
*
PO 00000
Standards: Equipment leaks.
*
*
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
Frm 00036
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
(v) * * *
(A) The owner or operator may
develop a written procedure that
identifies the conditions that justify a
delay of repair. The written procedures
shall be included in a document that is
maintained at the plant site. Reasons for
delay of repair may be documented by
citing the relevant sections of the
written procedure.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 41. Section 63.1256 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4)(i) introductory
text, and removing paragraphs (a)(4)(iii)
and (iv) to read as follows:
§ 63.1256
Standards: Wastewater.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The owner or operator shall
prepare a description of maintenance
procedures for management of
wastewater generated from the emptying
and purging of equipment in the process
during temporary shutdowns for
inspections, maintenance, and repair
(i.e., a maintenance turnaround) and
during periods which are not
shutdowns (i.e., routine maintenance).
The descriptions shall be included in a
document that is maintained at the
plant site and shall:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 42. Section 63.1257 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and the first sentence of paragraph
(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 63.1257 Test methods and compliance
procedures.
(a) General. Except as specified in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c),
(d), (e), and (f) of this section are
required to demonstrate initial
compliance with §§ 63.1253, 63.1254,
63.1256, and 63.1252(e), respectively.
The provisions in paragraphs (a)(2) and
(3) apply to performance tests that are
specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
of this section. The provisions in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section are used
to demonstrate initial compliance with
the alternative standards specified in
§§ 63.1253(d) and 63.1254(c). The
provisions in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section are used to comply with the
outlet concentration requirements
specified in §§ 63.1253(c),
63.1254(a)(2)(i), and (a)(3)(ii)(B),
63.1254(b)(i), and 63.1256(h)(2).
Performance tests shall be conducted
under such conditions representative of
performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Upon request,
the owner or operator shall make
available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
determine the conditions of
performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator may
consider the inlet to the equalization
tank as the inlet to the biological
treatment process if the wastewater is
conveyed by hard-piping from either the
last previous treatment process or the
point of determination to the
equalization tank; and the wastewater is
conveyed from the equalization tank
exclusively by hard-piping to the
biological treatment process and no
treatment processes or other waste
management units are used to store,
handle, or convey the wastewater
between the equalization tank and the
biological treatment process; and the
equalization tank is equipped with a
fixed roof and a closed-vent system that
routes emissions to a control device that
meets the requirements of
§ 63.1256(b)(1)(i) through (iv) and
§ 63.1256(b)(2)(i). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
§ 63.1258
[Amended]
43. Section 63.1258 is amended by
removing paragraph (b)(8)(iv).
■ 44. Section 63.1259 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.1259
Recordkeeping requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Malfunction records. Each owner
or operator of an affected source subject
to this subpart shall maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of operation (i.e., process
equipment), air pollution control
equipment, or monitoring equipment.
Each owner or operator shall maintain
records of actions taken during periods
of malfunction to minimize emissions in
accordance with § 63.1250(g)(3),
including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 45. Section 63.1260 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a);
■ b. Revising paragraph (i); and
■ c. Adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
§ 63.1260
Reporting requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected source shall comply with the
reporting requirements of paragraphs (b)
through (n) of this section. Applicable
reporting requirements of §§ 63.9 and
63.10 are also summarized in Table 1 of
this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) The owner or operator shall submit
a report of the number, duration, and a
brief description for each type of
malfunction which occurred during the
reporting period and which caused or
may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The
report must also include a description of
actions taken by an owner or operator
during a malfunction of an affected
source to minimize emissions in
accordance with § 63.1250(g)(3),
including actions taken to correct a
malfunction. The report shall be
submitted on the same schedule as the
periodic reports required under
paragraph (g) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(n)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as
22601
defined in § 63.2 and as required in this
subpart, you must submit performance
test data, except opacity data,
electronically to EPA’s Central Data
Exchange by using the ERT (see
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert
tool.html/) or other compatible
electronic spreadsheet. Only data
collected using test methods compatible
with ERT are subject to this requirement
to be submitted electronically into
EPA’s WebFIRE database.
(2) All reports required by this
subpart not subject to the requirements
in paragraphs (n)(1) of this section must
be sent to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator
and the owner or operator of a source,
these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of
reports subject to paragraph (n)(1) of
this section in paper format.
■ 46. Table 1 to Subpart GGG is
amended by:
■ a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
■ b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i),
63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2),
and 63.6(e)(3);
■ c. Removing entry 63.6(f)–(g);
■ d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(f)(2)–
(3), 63.6(g);
■ e. Removing entry 63.7(e);
■ f. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and
63.7(e)(2)–(4);
■ g. Removing entry 63.8(d);
■ h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)–(2) and
63.8(d)(3).
■ i. Removing entry 63.10(c)–(d)(2);
■ j. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(9),
63.10(c)(10), 63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)–
(14), 63.10(c)(15), and 63.10(d)(1)–(2);
■ k. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4–5); and
■ l. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and
63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GGG OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART GGG
General provisions reference
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
*
*
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ..........................................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..........................................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) .........................................
§ 63.6(e)(2) ..............................................
§ 63.6(e)(3) ..............................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Summary of requirements
Applies to
subpart GGG
Comments
*
*
*
*
*
Requirements during pe- No .............................. See 63.1250(g)(3) for general duty requirement.
riods of startup, shutAny cross-reference to 63.6(e)(1)(i) in any other
down, and malfunction.
general provision incorporated by reference
shall be treated as a cross-reference to
63.1250(g)(3).
Malfunction correction
No.
requirements.
Enforceability of operYes.
ation and maintenance
requirements.
Reserved ....................... No .............................. Section reserved.
Startup, shutdown, and
No.
malfunction plan requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
22602
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GGG OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART GGG—Continued
General provisions reference
Summary of requirements
*
*
63.6(f)(1) .................................................
*
Applicability of nonopacity emission
standards.
Methods of determining
compliance and findings compliance.
Use of an alternative
nonopacity emission
standard.
*
No.
*
*
63.7(e)(1) ................................................
*
Conduct of performance
tests.
63.7(e)(2)–(4) ..........................................
Performance tests requirements.
*
*
*
*
No .............................. See 63.1257(a) text. Any cross-reference to
63.7(e)(1) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a
cross-reference to 63.1257(a).
Yes.
*
*
63.8(d)(1)–(2) ..........................................
*
CMS quality control program requirements.
CMS quality control program recordkeeping
requirements.
*
Yes.
*
Additional recordkeeping
requirements for
sources with continuous monitoring systems.
Malfunction recordkeeping requirement.
Malfunction corrective
action recordkeeping
requirement.
Additional recordkeeping
requirements for
sources with continuous monitoring systems.
Additional SSM recordkeeping requirements.
*
Yes.
*
*
63.10(d)(1)–(2) ........................................
*
General reporting requirements.
*
Yes.
*
*
*
*
*
63.10(d)(4) ..............................................
*
Progress report requirements.
Startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report requirements.
*
Yes.
*
*
*
63.6(f)(2)–(3) ...........................................
63.6(g) .....................................................
63.8(d)(3) ................................................
*
*
63.10(c)(1)–(9) ........................................
63.10(c)(10) ............................................
63.10(c)(11) ............................................
63.10(c)(12)–(14) ....................................
63.10(c)(15) ............................................
63.10(d)(5) ..............................................
*
*
Applies to
subpart GGG
Comments
*
*
Yes.
Yes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes, except for last
sentence.
No ..............................
Subpart GGG specifies recordkeeping requirements.
Subpart GGG specifies recordkeeping requirements.
No ..............................
Yes.
No.
No ..............................
*
*
Subpart GGG specifies reporting requirements.
*
*
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
[FR Doc. 2011–8168 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
*
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21APR3.SGM
21APR3
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22566-22602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8168]
[[Page 22565]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 77
April 21, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations;
Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing Industry;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 22566]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600; FRL-9291-3]
RIN 2060-AO91
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing
Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action for four national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) that regulate 12
industrial source categories evaluated in our risk and technology
review. The four NESHAP include: National Emissions Standards for Group
I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber Production, Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production,
Hypalon\TM\ Production, Neoprene Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production); Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and The
Printing and Publishing Industry.
For some source categories, EPA is finalizing our decisions
concerning the residual risk and technology reviews. For the Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and the Group I Polymers and
Resins NESHAP, EPA is finalizing emission standards to address certain
emission sources not previously regulated under the NESHAP. EPA is also
finalizing changes to the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP to correct
an editorial error. For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing
revisions to the regulatory provisions related to emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and promulgating
provisions addressing electronic submission of emission test results.
DATES: This final action is effective on April 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet, and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA 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 Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Refining and
Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4516; fax
number: (919) 685-3219; and e-mail address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. For
additional contact information, see the following SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding the
modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air
Toxics Assessment Group (C539-02), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-
5499; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and e-mail address:
manning.elaine@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of
these four NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate
person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.
Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP for: OECA contact \1\ OAQPS contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Polymers and Resins. Marcia Mia (202) 564- Nick Parsons, (919)
7042, 541-5372,
mia.marcia@epa.gov. parsons.nick@epa.gov.
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Maria Malave, (202) Steve Shedd, (919)
Operations. 564-7027, 541-5397,
malave.maria@epa.go shedd.steve@epa.gov
v. .
Pharmaceuticals Production.. Marcia Mia, (202) Nick Parsons, (919)
564-7042, 541-5372,
mia.marcia@epa.gov. parsons.nick@epa.gov.
The Printing and Publishing Rafael Sanchez, David Salman, (919)
Industry. (202) 564-7028, 541-5402,
sanchez.rafael@epa. salman.dave@epa.gov
gov. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OECA stands for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
\2\ OAQPS stands for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Background Information Document. On October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65068),
EPA proposed revisions to six NESHAP that regulate 16 industrial source
categories evaluated in our risk and technology review. The six NESHAP
and industrial source categories are: National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers and
Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals
Production; The Printing and Publishing Industry; and Steel Pickling--
HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration. In this
action, we are finalizing decisions for four of these NESHAP--Group I
Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations;
Pharmaceuticals Production; and The Printing and Publishing Industry.
We will finalize our decisions for the Hard and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks NESHAP and the Steel
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration in
a future rulemaking.\1\ A summary of the public comments on the
proposal, and EPA's responses to the comments, is
[[Page 22567]]
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We addressed two additional source categories as part of
this proposed rule, Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration, and we plan to take final action
on those two source categories in June 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in the preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rules
A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group I Polymers
and Resins source categories?
B. What are the final rule amendments for the Marine Tank Vessel
Loading Operations (MTVLO) source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments for the Pharmaceuticals
Production source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments for the Printing and
Publishing Industry source category?
E. What are the requirements during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction?
F. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test
results to EPA?
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these
source categories since proposal?
B. What changes did we make to the Group I Polymers and Resins
MACT since proposal?
C. What changes did we make to the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations MACT since proposal?
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
A. EPA's Authority Under CAA Section 112
B. Group I Polymers and Resins
C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Requirements
VI. Impacts of the Final Rules
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code MACT \2\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Polymers and Resins:
Butyl Rubber Production............. 325212 1307
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers 325212 1311
Production.........................
Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production 325212 1313
Hypalon\TM\ Production.............. 325212 1315
Neoprene Production................. 325212 1320
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production. 325212 1321
Polybutadiene Rubber Production..... 325212 1325
Polysulfide Rubber Production....... 325212 1332
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex 325212 1339
Production.........................
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations... 4883 0603
Pharmaceuticals Production.............. 3254 1201
The Printing and Publishing Industry.... 32311 0714
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source categories listed. To determine whether your
facility would be affected, you should examine the applicability
criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of any of these NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web (www)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed and promulgated rules at the following
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.
Additional information is available on the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) Web page at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and
detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 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 by June 20, 2011. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly 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
[[Page 22568]]
section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA 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
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the
CAA, section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate 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
technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts),
and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards.
For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements,
and 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 that is 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, we must
also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor,
under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA
section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques 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; and/or are
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two
different analyses, as required by the CAA: Section 112(d)(6) of the
CAA calls for us to review these technology-based standards, and to
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years; and within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the
risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-
based standards and to 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. In doing so, EPA may adopt
standards equal to existing MACT standards if EPA determines that the
existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d
1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On October 21, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule and supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for these four
NESHAP that took into consideration the RTR analyses. For these
NESHAP--Group I Polymers and Resins, Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production, and The Printing and Publishing
Industry--this action provides EPA's final determinations pursuant to
the RTR provisions of CAA section 112. In addition, we are promulgating
amendments as follows:
For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and
Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3), EPA is finalizing revisions to address certain emission
sources not currently regulated under the standards.
For the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, EPA is
finalizing changes to correct an editorial error.
For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions
to requirements in each NESHAP related to emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions
to requirements in each NESHAP related to electronic reporting.
III. Summary of the Final Rules
A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group I Polymers and
Resins source categories?
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins were promulgated on September 5,
1996 (62 FR 46925), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart U. The
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards apply to major sources and
regulate HAP emissions from nine source categories: Butyl Rubber
Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene
Rubber Production, Hypalon\TM\ Production, Neoprene Production, Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber (NBR) Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production,
Polysulfide Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production.
The Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards regulate HAP
emissions resulting from the production of elastomers (i.e., synthetic
rubber). An elastomer is a synthetic polymeric material that can
stretch to at least twice its original length and then return rapidly
to approximately its original length when released. Elastomers are
produced via a polymerization/copolymerization process, in which
monomers undergo intermolecular chemical bond formation to form a very
large polymer molecule. Generally, the production of elastomers entails
four processes: (1) Raw material (i.e., solvent) storage and refining;
(2) polymer formation in a reactor (either via the solution process,
where monomers are dissolved in an organic solvent, or the emulsion
process, where monomers are dispersed in water using a soap solution);
(3) stripping and material recovery; and (4) finishing (i.e., blending,
aging, coagulation, washing, and drying).
Sources of HAP emissions from elastomers production include raw
material storage vessels, front-end
[[Page 22569]]
process vents, back-end process operations, wastewater operations, and
equipment leaks. The ``front-end'' processes include pre-
polymerization, reaction, stripping, and material recovery operations;
and the ``back-end'' process includes all operations after stripping
(predominantly drying and finishing). Typical control devices used to
reduce organic HAP emissions from front-end process vents include
flares, incinerators, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers.
Emissions from storage vessels are controlled by floating roofs or by
routing them to a control device.
While emissions from back-end process operations can be controlled
with control devices such as incinerators, the most common method of
reducing these emissions is the pollution prevention method of reducing
the amount of residual HAP that is contained in the raw product going
to the back-end operations. Emissions from wastewater are controlled by
a variety of methods, including equipment modifications (e.g., fixed
roofs on storage vessels and oil water separators; covers on surface
impoundments, containers, and drain systems), treatment to remove the
HAP (steam stripping, biological treatment), control devices, and work
practices.
Emissions from equipment leaks are typically reduced by leak
detection and repair work practice programs, and in some cases, by
equipment modifications.
For these five Group I Polymers and Resins \2\ source categories--
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production; HypalonTM Production;
Polybutadiene Rubber Production; Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production; and NBR Production--we have determined that the current
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse
environmental effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting the existing MACT
standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also determined
that there have been no significant developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies since promulgation of the MACT
standards, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT
standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We previously re-adopted the existing MACT standards to
satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA for four Group I Polymers and
Resins source categories--Neoprene Rubber Production; Ethylene
Propylene Rubber Production; Butyl Rubber Production; and
Polysulfide Rubber Production. See 73 FR 76220, published December
16, 2008.
\3\ We note there are no longer any operating facilities in the
United States that produce Hypalon\TM\, and we do not anticipate
that any will begin operation in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are eliminating the subcategories in the Butyl Rubber source
category (Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber) because the technical
differences that distinguished the subcategories when the original rule
was developed no longer exist. The existing requirements for facilities
producing either butyl rubber or halobutyl rubber as the primary
product are identical, and, therefore, the removal of the subcategory
distinction does not affect these requirements. The source category
remains named Butyl Rubber Production. We are establishing standards at
the MACT floor level of control for previously unregulated hydrochloric
acid (HCl) emissions from front-end process vents in the Butyl Rubber
and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories. We are also
establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for
previously unregulated back-end process operations in the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, NBR, Neoprene, and Butyl Rubber source
categories.
The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this
action for new and existing major source facilities in the Group 1
Polymers and Resins source categories are shown in Table 3 of this
preamble.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 22570]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP11.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 22571]]
We are finalizing changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart U to indicate that several requirements of
the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions related to periods of SSM do not
apply. We are adding provisions to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
standards to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the
SSM plan requirement, removing the explanation of applicability of
emissions standards during periods of SSM, revising the definition of
initial start-up to remove references to malfunctions, clarifying the
required conditions for performance tests, and revising the SSM-
associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to
require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are
also adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions,
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and operators of Group
I Polymers and Resins facilities are required to submit electronic
copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE
database through an electronic emissions test report structure called
the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to EPA does not require any
additional performance testing, and applies only to those performance
tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT.
We anticipate that the front-end process vent limits will not
require additional control to meet the floor-level standards for HCl
emissions from front-end process operations at the facilities in the
Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories. We
anticipate that facilities in the Butyl Rubber, Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers, Neoprene Rubber, and NBR source categories will not require
additional control to meet the floor-level standards for the back-end
process operations.
To demonstrate compliance with the front-end process vent HCl
emissions provisions of the final rule, the facility owner or operator
will be required to submit an initial notification of the calculated
front-end HCl limit for the facility and to perform and record monthly
calculations of the mass of HCl emissions and the mass of elastomer
product produced. These recorded monthly calculations are required to
be submitted in the semi-annual compliance reports already required by
existing provisions of the rule.
To demonstrate compliance with the back-end process operation
provisions of the final rule, the facility owner or operator will be
required to submit an initial notification of the calculated back-end
limit for the facility, and to perform and record monthly calculations
of the mass of HAP emissions and the mass of elastomer product
produced. These recorded monthly calculations are required to be
submitted in the semi-annual compliance reports already required by
existing provisions of the rule.
The final changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards
are not expected to result in substantial emissions reduction or
economic impacts. We have determined that facilities in the Group 1
Polymers and Resins categories can meet the applicable emissions limits
at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown, with the
exception of the organic HAP emissions limits applicable to front-end
process vents at facilities in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene
Rubber source categories. We have determined that facilities in the
Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories cannot
meet the applicable organic HAP emission limits applicable to
continuous front-end process vents during periods of shutdown.
Therefore, we are establishing alternative emissions limits during
these periods. No substantial changes in costs to industry are
predicted.
B. What are the final rule amendments for the Marine Tank Vessel
Loading Operations (MTVLO) source category?
MTVLO are loading operations conducted at marine terminals in which
liquid commodities, such as crude oil, gasoline, and other fuels or
chemicals, are pumped from the terminal's large, above-ground storage
tanks through a network of pipes into a storage compartment (tank) on
the vessel. Emissions occur as vapors are displaced from the tank as it
is being filled. Most MTVLO facilities are either independent terminals
or are associated with synthetic organic chemical manufacturers or with
petroleum refineries (although MTVLO at petroleum refineries are part
of the Petroleum Refinery source category).
For these MTVLO facilities, we have determined that the current
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse
environmental effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting the existing MACT
standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also determined
that the costs of the only significant development in practices,
processes, or control technologies since promulgation of the MACT
standards is disproportionate to the emission reduction that would be
achieved, and we are not adopting additional technology standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing changes to the MTVLO MACT standards to require
standards for two subcategories of MTVLO facilities for which the
current MTVLO MACT standards do not include emission standards. These
subcategories are facilities with MTVLO that emit less than 10/25 TPY
of HAP that are located at a major source of HAP emissions and
facilities located more than 0.5 miles from shore. For these source
categories, we are adding a requirement for the facilities to perform
submerged fill. This requirement is the MACT floor level of control.
We are finalizing changes to the MTVLO MACT standards to eliminate
the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart Y to indicate that several requirements of the 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply. We are
adding provisions to the MTVLO MACT standards to operate in a manner
that minimizes emissions, clarifying the required conditions for
performance tests, and revising the SSM-associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require reporting and
recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also adding provisions
to provide an affirmative defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
Additionally, we are requiring the electronic submittal of
performance test data to increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and to improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and
operators of MTVLO are required to submit electronic copies of
applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE database
through an electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT.
This requirement to submit performance test data electronically to EPA
does not require any additional performance testing, and applies only
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are
supported by the ERT. The final changes to the
[[Page 22572]]
MTVLO MACT standards will have little or no impact on HAP emissions or
costs because facilities currently use submerged fill, as required by
Coast Guard regulations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 46 CFR 153.282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the final rule amendments for the Pharmaceuticals
Production source category?
The pharmaceutical manufacturing process consists of chemical
production operations that produce drugs and medications. These
operations include chemical synthesis (deriving a drug's active
ingredient) and chemical formulation (producing a drug in its final
form). Emissions occur from breathing and withdrawal losses from
chemical storage tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks from piping
and equipment used to transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and
volatilization of HAP from wastewater streams.
For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the support
documents in the docket, we have determined that the current MACT
standards for Pharmaceutical Production facilities reduce risk to an
acceptable level, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, and prevent adverse environmental effects. We are, therefore,
re-adopting the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of
the CAA. We have also determined that there have been no significant
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies since
promulgation of the MACT standards, and that, therefore, it is not
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
We are finalizing changes to the Pharmaceutical Production MACT
standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG to indicate that several requirements of
the 40 CFR General Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply.
We are adding provisions to the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT
standards to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the
SSM plan requirement, removing the exemption provisions for periods of
SSM in 40 CFR 63.1250(g), requiring that delay of equipment leak repair
plans be contained in a separate document, clarifying the required
conditions for performance tests, and revising the SSM-associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require
reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also
adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions,
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and operators of
Pharmaceuticals Production facilities are required to submit electronic
copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE
database through an electronic emissions test report structure called
the ERT. This requirement to submit performance test data
electronically to EPA does not require any additional performance
testing, and applies only to those performance tests conducted using
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
We are also finalizing a correction to an editorial error in 40 CFR
63.1257(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii). This section incorrectly provides that
only one of the three listed criteria must be met for the inlet to the
equalization tank to be considered the inlet to the biological
treatment process. The final correction specifies that all of the
criteria must be met.
These revisions to the Pharmaceutical Production MACT standards are
not expected to result in substantial emissions reduction or economic
impacts. We have determined that facilities in this source category can
meet the applicable emissions standards at all times, including periods
of startup and shutdown, are in compliance with the current MACT
standard. No substantial changes in costs to industry are predicted.
The correction to the editorial error may result in minimal costs to
add or move equipment and may also result in some small amount of
emission reductions for any facility that was meeting only one or two
of the three listed criteria. However, as the intent of the current
MACT standards at the time they were promulgated was to require
facilities to meet all three criteria, the costs and emission
reductions associated with this requirement were factored into the
impacts of the MACT standards at the time the standards were
promulgated in 1998. See 63 FR 50287.
D. What are the final rule amendments for the Printing and Publishing
Industry source category?
Printing and publishing facilities are those facilities that use
rotogravure, flexography, and other methods, such as lithography,
letterpress, and screen printing, to print on a variety of substrates,
including paper, plastic film, metal foil, and vinyl. The Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards include two subcategories: (1)
Publication rotogravure printing and (2) product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing. Emissions occur from
the evaporation of solvents in the inks and from cleaning solvents. The
emission points include printing presses and associated dryers and ink
and solvent storage.
For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the support
documents in the docket, we have determined that the current MACT
standards for Printing and Publishing facilities reduce risk to an
acceptable level, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, and prevent adverse environmental effects. We are, therefore,
re-adopting the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of
the CAA. We have also determined that the costs of the only significant
development in practices, processes, or control technologies since
promulgation of the MACT standards is disproportionate to the emission
reduction that would be achieved, and, therefore, we are not adopting
additional technology standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing changes to the Printing and Publishing Industry
MACT standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise
Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK to indicate that several
requirements of the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions related to
periods of SSM do not apply. We are adding provisions to the Printing
and Publishing Industry MACT standards requiring sources to operate in
a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the SSM plan requirement,
clarifying the required conditions for performance tests, and revising
the SSM-associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of
malfunction. We are also adding provisions to provide an affirmative
defense against civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards
caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the
affirmative defense.
We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and operators of
printing and publishing facilities are required to submit electronic
copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE
[[Page 22573]]
database through an electronic emissions test report structure called
the Electronic ERT. This requirement to submit performance test data
electronically to EPA does not require any additional performance
testing, and applies only to those performance tests conducted using
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
These revisions to the Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards are not expected to result in substantial emissions reduction
or economic impacts. We have determined that facilities in this source
category can meet the applicable emissions standards at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown, are in compliance with the
current MACT standards. No substantial changes in costs to industry are
predicted.
E. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that is part of a
regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,''
that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated
into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories,
these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with
the otherwise applicable CAA section 112 emission standards during
periods of SSM.
While the Court's ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC
Cir. 2008), did not directly affect all the NESHAP rules being
addressed, the legality of source category-specific SSM provisions,
such as those in all four NESHAP rules, are called into question based
on the reasoning in that decision.
We have eliminated the SSM exemptions in these four NESHAP.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA's standards in these rules will
apply at all times. We have eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping
and reporting requirements that were related to the SSM exemption that
no longer applies. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not
included in the regulatory language any provisions that are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in light of the removal of the
SSM exemption.
EPA has not established different standards for periods of startup
and shutdown for three of the four NESHAP addressed in this rule
because we believe compliance with the standards is achievable during
these periods. In the case of MTVLO, loading of marine tank vessels
occurs in ``batches,'' and general practice is for the loading
operators to test out the vapor control system before it is attached to
the tank vessel. In the case of the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT
standards, we expect the difference in emission levels during periods
of startup and shutdown are insignificant and that facilities in this
source category should be able to comply with the standards during
these times. In the case of the Printing and Publishing MACT standards,
we believe there are sufficiently long averaging times incorporated
into the emissions limits that facilities should be able to comply
during periods of startup and shutdown. In the case of Group I Polymers
and Resins, one commenter stated that organic HAP emissions that are
required to be sent to emissions control equipment (i.e., flares) may
not be able to comply with the MACT standards during periods of
shutdown. The commenter stated that they may not always be able to
route some of their process vents to a flare during periods of shutdown
due to the low pressure or low heating value in the process vent. EPA
agrees with the commenter that it is not possible to comply with the
applicable standard during periods of shutdown, and has provided an
alternative standard applicable during these times.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner
* * *'' (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not
require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA
section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar
source, and for existing sources, generally must be no less stringent
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while EPA
accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent with
the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. CAA Section
112 uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing''
unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112
performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events. Further, accounting for malfunctions would be
difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category, and,
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d
658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) (EPA typically has wide latitude in determining
the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,'
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a best
controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to
avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions could
lead to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. EPA's
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112, and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112 standards as a result of a
[[Page 22574]]
malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based
on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's
failure to comply with the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact,
``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not instead
``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR
63.2 (definition of malfunction).
Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail, and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is, therefore, adding to the final
rules an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.482
(Group I Polymers and Resins), 63.561 (MTVLO), 63.822 (The Printing and
Publishing Industry), 63.1251 (Pharmaceuticals Production). The
regulations define ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of
an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding. We also have added other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 63.480 (Group I Polymers
and Resins), 40 CFR 63.560 (MTVLO), 40 CFR 63.820 (The Printing and
Publishing Industry), 40 CFR 63.1250 (Pharmaceuticals Production). The
source must prove by a preponderance of evidence that it has met all of
the elements set forth in affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 22.24. The
criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where
the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the
narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent,
not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and/or
careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent,
and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that
steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), and to prevent future
malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible
when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded * * *''
and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of
the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health * * *'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the
Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense,
and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the
requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be
assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR
part 22.77).
F. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test results
to EPA?
EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes,
including compliance determinations, emission factor development, and
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for
us, but also for regulatory agencies, and source owners and operators,
to locate, collect, and submit performance test data because of varied
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. In recent
years, though, performance test data in electronic format have become
readily available, making it possible to move to an electronic data
submittal system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and improve data accessibility.
In this action, as a step to increase the ease and efficiency of
data submittal and improve data accessibility, EPA is requiring the
electronic submittal of select performance test data. Specifically, EPA
is requiring owners and operators of sources subject to these MACT
standards to submit electronic copies of applicable reports of
performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was
constructed to store performance test data for use in developing
emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. Data entry will
be through an electronic emissions test report structure called the
ERT.
The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report through
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE
database. Although ERT is not the only electronic interface that can be
used to submit performance test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE,
it makes submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description
of the ERT can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
EPA would not require any additional performance testing, and would
apply to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are
supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry
form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of
the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. When a facility
submits performance test data to CDX, there will be no additional
requirements for performance test data compilation. Moreover, we
believe that industry will benefit from this new electronic data
submittal requirement. Having these data, EPA will be able to develop
improved emission factors, make fewer information requests, and
promulgate better regulations. The information to be reported is
already required for the existing test methods, and is necessary to
evaluate the conformance to the test method.
One major advantage of submitting performance test data through the
ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much of the
documentation required to be reported by this rule that also clearly
states what testing information would be required. Another important
benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is
conducted is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved in
data collection activities in the future. When EPA has performance test
data in hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data
collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual
risk assessments or technology reviews. This results in a reduced
burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to
respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and
distributing data collection requests and assessing the results).
[[Page 22575]]
State, local, and tribal agencies will benefit from electronic data
submission as their review of the data will be more streamlined and
accurate, because they would not have to re-enter the data to assess
the calculations and verify the data entry. Finally, another benefit of
submitting data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data will
greatly improve the overall quality of the existing and new emission
factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which the
emission factor is based, and by ensuring that data are more
representative of current industry operational procedures. A common
complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emission factors
are outdated or not representative of a particular source category. By
receiving and incorporating data for most performance tests, EPA will
be able to ensure that emission factors, when updated, represent the
most current range of operational practices. In summary, in addition to
supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and
other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database
populated with performance test data will save industry, State, local,
and tribal agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and effort while
improving the quality of emission inventories, and, as a result, air
quality regulations.
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on April 21, 2011. For the MACT standards being
addressed in this action, the compliance date for the revised SSM
requirements is the effective date of the standards, April 21, 2011.
The electronic reporting requirements for the four MACT standards being
addressed in this action are effective on January 1, 2012. For the
Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT standards, the compliance date for
existing sources for the new MACT standards applicable to front-end and
back-end process operations is 1 year from the effective date of the
standards, April 23, 2012. For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations MACT standards, the compliance date for the new requirements
for submerged fill is 1 year from the effective date of the standards,
April 23, 2012. The compliance date for the corrected provision in the
Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards is the effective date of the
standards, April 21, 2011. Beyond the revised SSM and electronic
reporting requirements, there are no changes to The Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards.
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these source
categories since proposal?
CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine whether certain
emissions standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, and once we
have ensured that the risk is acceptable, whether the standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. First we determine whether there is an
acceptable risk. EPA generally presumes that, if the maximum individual
risk (MIR) is no higher than 100-in-1 million, that risk is acceptable.
In addition to MIR, EPA also considers a series of other health
measures and factors to complete an overall judgment on acceptability.
In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the
exposed population than MIR alone. If the risk is unacceptable, EPA
must require additional controls, without consideration of cost, to
ensure an acceptable level of risk. After determining that the level of
risk is acceptable, EPA evaluates whether the standards provide an
ample margin of safety by considering costs and economic impacts of
controls, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors, in
addition to those health measures and factors considered to determined
acceptability. Considering all of these factors, EPA ensures that the
standard is set at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, as required by CAA section 112(f).
At proposal, we conducted risk assessments that provided estimates
of the MIR posed by the allowable and actual HAP emissions from each
source in a category, the distribution of cancer risks within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, hazard index (HI) for chronic
exposures to HAP with non-cancer health effects, and hazard quotient
(HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with non-cancer health effects. We
found that the residual risks to public health from all source
categories subject to these four MACT standards are acceptable, and,
further, that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health and pose no adverse environmental effects.
Thus, we proposed that no additional controls would be required to
address such risks. Specifically, we found that the lifetime cancer
risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from each of these
seven source categories \5\ was less than 100-in-1 million for both the
actual emissions and the emissions that would occur if emissions from
the source categories were at the maximum levels allowed by the
standards. Additional analyses showed that the cancer incidence and
number of people with cancer risk over 1-in-1 million were low. In
addition, a review of the acute non-cancer exposures showed that none
of these seven source categories posed an appreciable risk of acute
non-cancer health effects. We also determined that HAP emissions from
these source categories were not expected to result in adverse
environmental effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The seven source categories for which we conducted RTR are
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production; Polybutadiene Rubber
Production; Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production; and NBR
Production; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, Pharmaceuticals
Production; and Printing and Publishing. We did not conduct RTR for
four of the Group I Polymers and Resins source categories (Butyl
Rubber Production; Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production; Polysulfide
Rubber Production; and Neoprene), because we previously re-adopted
the existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. See
73 FR 76220, published December 16, 2008. In addition, we did not
conduct RTR for Hypalon\TM\ Production, because there are no longer
any facilities operating in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support our decisions regarding acceptability and ample margin
of safety in the proposal, we also conducted risk assessments that
accounted for HAP emissions from entire facilities at which a source
covered by one of the standards under review was located. With the
exception of two facilities with MTVLO on-site that had facility-wide
risks greater than 100-in-1 million, based on the data we had at that
time, we concluded, for purposes of the proposal, that the facility-
wide risk for sources in the four source categories was also relatively
low. As a result of data and information received from commenters on
the proposal, we now project the highest facility-wide risk with MTVLO
on-site is approximately 90-in-1 million.
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for the source categories
addressed in these final rules. Although uncertainty exists, we believe
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions,
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the
uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships is
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 75 FR 65081-65083.
[[Page 22576]]
B. What changes did we make to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
since proposal?
We are eliminating the subcategories (i.e., Butyl Rubber and
Halobutyl Rubber) in the Butyl Rubber source category because we agree
with commenters who stated that both facilities in the Butyl Rubber
source category now produce halobutyl rubber as the primary product,
and the technical differences that distinguished the subcategories no
long
