National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, 47346-47404 [2019-18330]

Download as PDF 47346 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0415; FRL–9998–78– OAR] RIN 2060–AU23 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Cellulose Products Manufacturing to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); to add provisions regarding periodic emissions testing and electronic reporting; to provide more flexibility for monitoring requirements; and to make technical and editorial changes. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before October 9, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before September 16, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/cellulose-productsmanufacturing-national-emissionstandards. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0415, by any of the following methods: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0415 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0415. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0415, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code: E143–03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 3158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: spence.kelley@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; and email address: hirtz.james@ epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Ms. Theresa Lowe, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 4786; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: lowe.theresa@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office of PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–7027; and email address: malave.maria@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0415. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0415. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0415. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: %R percent recovery ADI Applicability Determination Index AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system CEP Cellulose Ethers Production CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMC carboxymethyl cellulose COS carbonyl sulfide CS2 carbon disulfide EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared GACT generally available control technology H2S hydrogen sulfide HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEC hydroxyethyl cellulose HEM-3 Human Exposure Model-3 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HPC hydroxypropyl cellulose HPMC hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose HQ hazard quotient IBR incorporation by reference ICR information collection request ID identifier IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometers km2 square kilometers MACT maximum achievable control technology MC methyl cellulose mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk MVP Miscellaneous Viscose Processes NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NaOH sodium hydroxide NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NRC National Research Council NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47347 OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OMB Office of Management and Budget PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format PM particulate matter POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act QA quality assurance RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Limits Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SCC source classification code SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate USGS United States Geological Survey VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compounds Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making under CAA section 112(f)(2)? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47348 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. This proposed action will not affect federal, state, local, and tribal government entities. The Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992) included separate source categories for the various cellulose products manufacturing industries. The source categories on the initial list were Cellulose Food Casings, Rayon, Cellophane, Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and Cellulose Ethers Production. The Cellulose Ethers Production source category on the initial list included the hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose industries. In developing the original proposed rule for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, we identified another cellulose products manufacturing industry, Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing, that was not on the initial source category list. We added Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing to the source category list on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63026) in accordance with section 112(c) of the CAA. When the EPA proposed the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP on August 28, 2000 (65 FR 52166), the Cellulose Food Casings, Rayon, Cellophane, and Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing source categories were combined to create a new source category called ‘‘Miscellaneous Viscose Processes.’’ At the same time, we combined the Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and Cellulose Ethers Production source categories to create a newly expanded ‘‘Cellulose Ethers Production’’ source category. On February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6521), we published an updated source category list that included the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes (MVP) and Cellulose Ethers Production (CEP) source categories. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP Miscellaneous Viscose Processes ............. Cellulose Ethers Production ....................... Cellulose Products Manufacturing ............ Cellulose Products Manufacturing ............ 1 North 325211, 325220, 326121, 326199. 325199. American Industry Classification System. II. Background B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 NAICS code 1 Source category In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/celluloseproducts-manufacturing-nationalemission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0415). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47349 less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The MVP source category includes any facility engaged in the production of cellulose food casings, rayon, cellophane, or cellulosic sponges, which includes the following process steps: Production of alkali cellulose from cellulose and sodium hydroxide (NaOH); production of sodium cellulose xanthate from alkali cellulose and carbon disulfide (CS2) (xanthation); production of viscose from sodium cellulose xanthate and NaOH solution; regeneration of liquid viscose into solid cellulose; 2 and washing of the solid cellulose product (see 65 FR 52171–2, August 28, 2000). It should be noted that, while the current Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP includes standards for rayon manufacturing, all rayon plants in the United States have shut down since promulgation of the original rule. The CEP source category includes any facility engaged in the production of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), methyl cellulose (MC), or hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), which includes the following process steps: Production of alkali cellulose from cellulose and NaOH; reaction of the alkali cellulose with one or more organic chemicals to produce a cellulose ether product; 3 washing and purification of the cellulose ether product; and drying of the cellulose ether product (see 65 FR 52171, August 28, 2000). 2 The MVP operations use different methods and equipment to complete the regeneration step. Cellulose food casing operations extrude viscose through a die, forming a tube, while rayon operations extrude viscose through spinnerets, forming thin strands. Cellophane operations extrude viscose through a long slit, forming a flat sheet, while cellulosic sponge operations feed a mixture of viscose and Glauber’s salt into a sponge mold. 3 To produce CMC, HEC, HPC, MC, and HPMC, alkali cellulose is reacted with chloroacetic acid, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, methyl chloride, and a combination of methyl chloride and propylene oxide, respectively. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47350 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a technology review of the emission sources subject to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The NESHAP requires MVP operations to reduce the total sulfide emissions from their process vents and control the CS2 emissions from their CS2 unloading and storage operations. It also requires cellophane operations to reduce the toluene emissions from their solvent coating operations and toluene storage vessels. The NESHAP requires CEP operations to control the HAP emissions from their process vents, wastewater, equipment leaks, and liquid streams in open systems. The NESHAP requires both MVP and CEP operations to comply with work practice standards for closed-vent systems and heat exchanger systems. The NESHAP also includes various operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the MVP and CEP source categories. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? On June 8, 2018, the EPA sent out a survey to the cellulose products manufacturing industry to gather information needed to conduct the regulatory reviews required under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). The EPA divided the survey into two parts. Part 1 requested updated inventory data for emission sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, to support the residual risk assessment for the two source categories for purposes of detailed residual risk modeling. Part 2 requested available information on process equipment, control devices, and other pertinent information to support the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, technology review. The response rate for the survey was 100 percent. For more details on the data collection conducted to prepare inputs for the residual risk assessment, see the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart UUUU, in the docket for this rulemaking. For more details on the data collection conducted for the technology review, see the memorandum titled Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Source Category— Proposed Rule, also available in the docket. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? In addition to survey data provided by the regulated facilities, the EPA reviewed a number of other information sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 control technologies by cellulose products manufacturing facilities to support the technology review. These information sources include: • Emissions data (e.g., stack test reports and continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data) submitted with survey responses; • Facility operating permits submitted with survey responses and collected from state agencies; • Semiannual compliance reports submitted with survey responses; • Other documentation submitted with survey responses (e.g., compliance calculations; process flow diagrams; Safety Data Sheets; information on monitoring, wastewater, and equipment leaks); • Information on air pollution control options utilized by the industry from the EPA’s Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Limits Clearinghouse (RBLC); • Information on applicability and compliance issues from the EPA’s Applicability Determination Index (ADI); and • Literature review of recent information on MVP and CEP practices, processes, and control technologies. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making under CAA section 112(f)(2)? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.4 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: ‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’.’’ See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an 4 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source categories under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the categories. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 5 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the 5 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966 E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10007-unsigned.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47351 appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.A of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47352 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following documents which provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 6 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, we used data from Part 1 of the 2018 survey as the basis for the risk assessment for the MVP and CEP source categories. Part 1 of the survey, which concluded in August/September 2018, targeted facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions and involved an update of pre-populated National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data spreadsheets (or creation of new datasets). The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The NEI database includes estimates of actual annual air pollutant emissions from point and volume sources; emission release characteristic data such as emission release height, temperature, diameter, velocity, and flow rate; and locational latitude/longitude coordinates. We asked facilities subject to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP to refine (or create new) inventories based 6 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 on their NEI datasets for purposes of detailed residual risk modeling. Refinements included providing additional details for HAP emission sources, providing more specific information on the location and characteristics of emission points (e.g., updating emission release coordinates and parameters), and adding or updating HAP emissions data for each emission release point. We compiled the updated datasets for each individual facility into MVP and CEP emissions databases to create the MACT source category residual risk modeling files. The actual annual emissions data in the emissions databases include data from source tests, CEMS, material balances, emission factors, emission models, and engineering judgment provided by sources surveyed in Part 1 of the survey. We received a comprehensive set of emissions estimates that enabled us to conduct risk modeling of HAP emissions for all major source facilities in the MVP and CEP source categories. We conducted substantial quality assurance (QA) efforts on the Part 1 data in order to create the modeling files needed for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, residual risk assessment.7 We first reviewed the Part 1 databases to remove non-applicable data (e.g., data marked for deletion by survey respondents) unless we considered them to be source-category data, emission units identified as not subject to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP, emission units identified as shut down, records with non-HAP data, and records with zero emissions. No duplicate emissions data were discovered during the QA. We reviewed the databases to ensure that each record contained a facility identifier (ID), emission unit ID, and process ID. If an ID was missing, one was assigned using information provided by industry (e.g., from EPA databases, from emission unit description or process description in the NEI). In some cases, emission unit IDs and process IDs were revised for consistency. Looking across the updated MVP and CEP inventories, we also reviewed whether there may be any referential integrity issues associated with these IDs (e.g., having the same emission unit ID associated with multiple emission unit descriptions or having the same process ID associated with multiple process descriptions or multiple source classification codes 7 These QA efforts are discussed in an April 15, 2019 memorandum in the docket titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart UUUU. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (SCCs)). In those cases, we revised the appropriate ID to address the issue. In addition, each record was checked to ensure it was labeled with a regulatory code, SCC, and emission process group. No regulatory codes or SCCs were found missing. The SCCs for some records were revised for consistency. Where information on emission process group was missing, the emission process group was determined based on information from SCCs, comments from survey respondents, etc. Next, the SCCs and emission process groups were compared and reviewed for consistency with each other; no issues were found. We reviewed the pollutant codes in the source category risk modeling files to ensure the codes and descriptions matched the latest code lookup table used by the EPA for risk modeling files; the review found the records to be consistent. We speciated data for chromium and mercury using default speciation criteria for those pollutants for the specific SCC. We speciated chromium emissions as hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) and trivalent chromium (chromium III). We speciated mercury emissions as particulate divalent mercury, gaseous divalent mercury, and gaseous elemental mercury. We were unable to speciate data for glycol ether for one facility because no information on the glycol ether compound(s) emitted was available from the facility in their Part 1 survey response or operating permit. For unspeciated emission inventories, it is the EPA’s risk assessment policy to use the most potent noncancer health benchmark as the default emission compound; in this case, ethylene glycol methyl ether would be modeled. We reviewed the emissions data by calculating the percent of facilities reporting each HAP, comparing emissions of a facility to category average emissions, calculating standard deviations, and identifying outliers. No pollutants in the MVP and CEP modeling files were found above or below the range for either category. We reviewed the MVP and CEP risk modeling files to ensure that each record in these files contained an emission release point ID. If an ID was missing, one was assigned using information provided by industry (e.g., from the emission unit ID or process ID). In some cases, emission release point IDs were revised for consistency. Looking across the updated MVP and CEP inventories, we also determined whether there may be any referential integrity issues associated with the emission release information. For each emission release point, each record E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules should have one set of coordinates (latitude and longitude) and one set of stack or fugitive parameters. All records were reviewed for consistency with respect to the emission release point. Where any such issues were identified, we revised the emission release point ID, stack/fugitive parameters, and/or coordinates to address the issue. We reviewed emission points labeled as stacks to ensure no fugitive parameters were identified; any fugitive parameter values (usually zeroes) entered for these records were deleted. We reviewed stack parameters to ensure all were populated with reasonable values and made changes where necessary. We checked stack height data to ensure that they were greater than stack diameter. We checked exit gas flow rate data to determine whether they met the EPA’s criteria that the flow rate must be within 10 percent of the calculated value (assuming a cylindrical stack). Where exit gas flow rate values did not meet the 10-percent criteria, we conducted a review to determine the source of the discrepancy (e.g., the reported stack parameter was in the wrong units). We also checked for missing stack parameters and populated the missing data using values from other records for the same emission release point; if values from other records were not available, we calculated the missing value based on other related parameters for the same emission release point (e.g., calculated exit gas velocity using available data for stack diameter and exit gas flow rate). We checked fugitive parameters to ensure there was an associated length, width, and angle, and that no stack parameters for fugitive sources were erroneously populated, other than the required national defaults. We checked coordinate values (latitude and longitude) to determine if there were any missing values and to ensure only one set of coordinates appeared for each emission release point. We populated the missing data using values from other records for the same emission release point, where possible. We revised coordinate values where necessary to ensure coordinates were consistent for the same emission point. We also checked coordinate values to ensure that all coordinates were on the facility property, by analyzing the distance between coordinates at individual facilities. Only one emission point, a wastewater treatment system emission unit, was found to be an outlier, and the coordinates of this emission point were checked and were found to lie on wastewater tanks near the boundary of the property. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 We checked the source category risk modeling files for missing control measure information and filled gaps using control measure comments provided by respondents in their Part 1 survey responses or process diagrams provided by respondents in their Part 2 survey responses. The emissions inventory for MVP sources identifies no emissions of PB– HAP. The emissions inventory for CEP sources identifies emissions of the following PB–HAP: Cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead compounds, and mercury compounds. Risk-based screening levels are available for Tier 1 screening for all of the above PB–HAP except lead compounds, which are compared to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead. Consistent with the EPA’s standard practice in conducting risk assessments for source categories, we conducted a two-step process to determine: (1) Whether PB–HAP are being emitted; and (2) whether they are being released above screening levels. If these releases are significantly above the screening levels and the EPA has detailed information on the releases and the site, a complete multipathway analysis of the site is conducted to estimate pathway risks for the source category. We considered actual emissions of the ecological HAP emitted from the CEP source category in the ecological HAP analysis. In addition to the PB–HAP emitted from the CEP source category, we considered hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) for ecological HAP modeling. The CEP source category, however, does not emit HF. Further information about the multipathway analysis performed for this category follows in section IV.A.2.c of this preamble. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47353 the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) Actual emissions are sometimes less than allowable emissions due to a compliance margin, a more stringent state or local rule, or over-control due to the use of control technologies, equipment, or work practices that are significantly better than that required to meet 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, emission limits. Consequently, as part of the Part 1 survey instructions, the EPA requested that facilities provide MACTallowable emissions estimates. Allowable emissions estimates were available for four of the five MVP facilities. Two MVP facilities provided their allowable emissions in their Part 1 survey spreadsheet. Two other MVP facilities provided their allowable emissions separately, in their Part 1 survey response letter. The latter two facilities stated that the stack parameters would be expected to be different if they were to emit at the allowable emissions levels because additional ductwork and ductwork modifications would be expected in order to route additional fumes to their biofilters if they increased capacity. While we do not intend MACT-allowable emissions in this risk modeling effort to represent the maximum potential-to-emit emission rate, we conservatively used this information for modeling because it was the only readily available information. We created new records in the MVP risk modeling file to include just these allowable emissions data and their associated stack parameters. To avoid any referential integrity issues, we assigned a different emission release point ID to these allowable emissions records. The remaining MVP facility did not provide allowable emissions data in their survey spreadsheet. However, this facility is the only one in its subcategory, so the original MACT for the subcategory was based on their level of control. Consequently, we assumed that allowable emissions were equal to the reported actual emissions. So, for this facility, the allowable multiplier is 1. There were some gaps in the allowable emissions estimates provided by the MVP facilities. Allowable emissions for carbonyl sulfide (COS) were not available for one MVP facility E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47354 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 for one of their processes because they report it as part of the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) limit in their title V permit. We created a new record in the MVP risk modeling file that calculated the COS allowable emissions for this process using the same multiplier as H2S (6.8). Allowable emissions for CS2 were also not available for a second MVP facility for some of their processes. We calculated the allowable emissions for this facility using the median of the multipliers for those processes at the facility that had allowable emissions estimates. Using this approach, we estimated the median allowable multiplier for CS2 for this facility to be approximately 2.4. Allowable emissions estimates were available for 48 percent of the records in the CEP risk modeling file, and the remaining 52 percent of records had no allowable emissions estimates. Of that 52 percent of records, 33 percent were uncontrolled sources of organic HAP, and 19 percent were controlled sources of organic HAP. For uncontrolled CEP sources without allowable emissions data (e.g., fugitive emissions), we assumed that allowable emissions were equal to their reported actual emissions, since there is no additional control beyond current emissions. For controlled CEP sources without allowable emissions data, we reviewed Part 2 survey data on emission controls for these sources and found that all of these sources were already meeting the 99-percent control required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, and based on the data reported, there is little if any additional control beyond current emissions. Consequently, allowable emissions are equal to actuals for controlled CEP sources. 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).8 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using 8 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.9 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 10 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 9 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 10 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 11 emitted by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual 11 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— an SAB Advisory, available at https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915 BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/ search.do?details=&vocabName= IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,12 we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of both reports: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,13 reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels 12 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). 13 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and in Appendix 5 of the reports: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment, both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47355 (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.’’ 14 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs repr esent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.15 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 14 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 15 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47356 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 16 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). As part of the Part 1 survey instructions, the EPA requested that facilities provide acute emissions estimates. For the MVP source category, acute emissions estimates were available for four of the five facilities. One of the four facilities was missing an acute emission estimate for COS for one process, but we were able to calculate an estimate for COS by applying the same acute multiplier for CS2 for the same process at this facility. We developed separate acute multipliers for MVP process operations and MVP 16 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20 Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20 Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014 %20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 storage tanks to estimate acute emissions for the fifth facility. We estimated the average acute multipliers for MVP process operations and MVP storage tanks to be approximately 1.9 and 1.1, respectively. For the CEP source category, acute emissions estimates were available for 38 percent of the records in the CEP risk modeling file. The remaining 62 percent of records had no acute emissions estimates. For CEP sources without acute emissions data, we reviewed permits and extracted maximum hourly rate data if available, and assumed the acute multiplier would be 10 if no data were available. A further discussion of why these factors were chosen can be found in the memorandum, Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart UUUU, available in the docket for this rulemaking. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. This was the case for the CEP source category. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an offsite location. This was required for the MVP source category, in which the data refinements employed consisted of ensuring that the locations where the maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and where the public could potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule which is available in the docket for this source category. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/fera/riskassessment-and-modeling-air-toxicsrisk-assessment-reference-library). For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB–HAP or lead compounds. Because we did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no further PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category. For the CEP source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead compounds, and mercury compounds, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB– HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2013-08/ documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB–HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP to assess the potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/ or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and USGS lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption of fish 17) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 18). If PB–HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB– HAP emissions to pose risks below a 17 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 18 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 level of concern. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.19 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment for CEP, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ 19 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47357 as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and HF. HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47358 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the MVP and CEP source categories emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the CEP source category, we identified emissions of cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds, and HCl. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any of the eight environmental HAP included in the screen. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions from the MVP source category, no further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted for that category. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and square kilometers (km2); the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the areaweighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule and the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule and the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which are available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway sitespecific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. Some of the emission estimates considered in this analysis are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. 47359 emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.20 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual 20 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=& glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47360 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.21 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,22 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk 21 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 22 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 could be considered significant and widespread. Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by the CEP source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For the MVP source category, we have identified appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.23 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. 23 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model 47361 has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? 1. MVP Source Category a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk results of the MVP source category. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the source category was estimated to be less than 1-in-1 million. The risk driver is acetaldehyde emissions from viscose process equipment. The total estimated cancer incidence from MVP emission sources based on actual and allowable emission levels is 0.000006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 167,000 years. Emissions of acetaldehyde contributed 100 percent to this cancer incidence. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, no people were exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the MVP source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than 1. Based upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by CS2 emissions from viscose process equipment. TABLE 2—MVP INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1 Number of facilities Risk assessment jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Maximum refined acute noncancer HQ 4 Baseline Actual Emissions Source Category ................................ Facility-Wide ....................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 5 5 PO 00000 Frm 00017 <1 1 Fmt 4701 0 0 Sfmt 4702 0.000006 0.00006 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 0.05 0.05 0.4 ........................ 47362 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—MVP INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1—Continued Number of facilities Risk assessment Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1in-1 million Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Maximum refined acute noncancer HQ 4 Baseline Allowable Emissions Source Category ................................ 5 <1 0 0.000006 0.05 ........................ 1 Based on actual, allowable, and facility-wide emissions. individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category and facility-wide. TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MVP source category is the respiratory system. 4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. The HQ of 0.4 is based upon an acute ERPG–1. 2 Maximum 3 Maximum b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum refined offsite acute noncancer HQ value for the MVP source category was less than 1 from CS2 emissions (based on the acute (1-hour) ERPG–1 for CS2). It is also important to note that the highest HQ is based on hourly emissions multiplier for each emission process group ranging from 1 to 37 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions. c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results The five facilities modeled in the MVP source category did not report any emissions of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB–HAP (arsenic, dioxin/ furans, and POM compounds) or any noncarcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium and mercury). Since, there are no PB– HAP or lead compounds identified in the emissions inventory for this source category, no further assessment of multipathway risk was conducted. d. Environmental Risk Screening Results The five facilities modeled in the MVP source category did not report any emissions of lead compounds, PB–HAP, or any acid gases (HCl or HF). Since there are no ecological HAP identified in the emissions inventory for this source category, no further assessment of ecological risk was conducted. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results Results of the assessment of facilitywide emissions indicate that none of the five facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 2). The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, driven by formaldehyde, cadmium compounds, and nickel compounds from a non-category fugitive area source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.00006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 16,700 years, with zero people estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1, driven by source category emissions of CS2 from viscose process equipment. 2. CEP Source Category a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk results of the CEP source category. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the source category was estimated to be 80-in-1 million. The risk driver is from emissions of ethylene oxide from cellulose ether process equipment used to produce hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC). The total estimated cancer incidence from CEP emission sources based on actual and allowable emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 100 years. Emissions of ethylene oxide contributed 99 percent to this cancer incidence based upon actual emissions. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, 105,000 people were exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than 1. Based upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by chlorine emissions from cellulose ether process equipment. TABLE 3—CEP INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1 Number of facilities Risk assessment jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 4 Baseline Actual Emissions Source Category ...................................... Facility-Wide ............................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 3 3 PO 00000 Frm 00018 80 2 500 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 105,000 570,000 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 0.01 0.04 09SEP2 0.06 54 0.1 ........................ Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules 47363 TABLE 3—CEP INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1—Continued Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Number of facilities Risk assessment Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 4 Baseline Allowable Emissions Source Category ...................................... 3 80 112,000 0.01 0.2 ........................ 1 Based on actual, allowable, and whole facility emissions. individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to ethylene oxide emissions from outside of the source category identified as releases from holding ponds, storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases. 3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the CEP source category is the respiratory system. 4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 5 Maximum TOSHI from whole facility are from chlorine emissions from non-category sources (classified as other). The target organ with the highest TOSHI is the respiratory system. 2 Maximum b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum refined offsite acute noncancer HQ value for the source category was less than 1 from methanol emissions from cellulose ether process equipment (based on the acute (1-hour) REL for methanol). It is also important to note that the highest HQ is based on an hourly emissions multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results One facility within the CEP source category reported emissions of multipathway pollutants of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB–HAP (arsenic), and noncarcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium and mercury). Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB–HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from the facility exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic PB–HAP (arsenic compounds) by a factor of 2 and for the noncarcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium and mercury) was equal to the Tier 1 screening value of 1. Based on this Tier 1 screening assessment for carcinogens, the arsenic, cadmium, and mercury emission rates for the single facility were below our level of concern. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/ m3). The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.00001 mg/m3 is well below the NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 d. Environmental Risk Screening Results As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the CEP source category. The three facilities modeled in the source category reported emissions of lead compounds and the above PB– HAP, as well as an acid gas (HCl). In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP, we did not find any exceedances of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results Results of the assessment of facilitywide emissions indicate that all three facilities modeled have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 3). The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 500-in-1 million, mainly driven by ethylene oxide from sources outside the source category, including holding ponds, storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases. The next highest cancer risk was 80-in-1 million, based on whole facility emissions of ethylene oxide. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25 years, with 570,000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 people estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million and 2,000 people with risks greater than 100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be equal to 4, driven by emissions of chlorine from non-category sources. 3. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the MVP and CEP source categories, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAPrelated cancer and noncancer risks from the MVP and CEP source categories across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. For the MVP source category demographic analysis, the results for various demographic groups are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from MVP facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the MVP demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review— Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities, available in the docket for this action. The results of the CEP demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47364 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the CEP facilities. TABLE 4—CEP DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS [CEP Source Category Demographic Assessment Results—50 km Study Area Radius] Population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million Nationwide Total Population ........................................................................................................................... Population with hazard index greater than 1 Source Category 317,746,049 104,572 0 White and Minority by Percent White ............................................................................................................................................ Minority ........................................................................................................................................ 62 38 51 49 0 0 Minority by Percent African American ......................................................................................................................... Native American .......................................................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 12 0.8 18 7 37 0.3 7 4 0 0 0 0 Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 14 86 12 88 0 0 Education by Percent Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .............................................................................. Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 14 86 16 84 0 0 Linguistically Isolated by Percent jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................................... The results of the CEP source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 104,572 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and approximately zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in three demographic groups (African American, above poverty level, and over 25 without highs school diploma) are greater than their respective nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the CEP demographic analysis are presented in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, available in the docket for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the MVP and CEP source categories. In determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. The results for the MVP and CEP source categories indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are below PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 6 1 0 the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The results for the MVP source category indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are less than 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The MVP source category also has chronic noncancer inhalation exposures to HAP with health benchmarks with TOSHI values less than 1 (0.05), 20 times below an exposure that the EPA has determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in an HQ greater than 1 (0.4) based upon the 1-hour REL. The results for the CEP source category indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are less or equal to 80-in-1 million, below the presumptive limit of acceptability of E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 100-in-1 million. EPA estimates emissions from the 3 facilities in the source category would result in a cancer incidence of 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 100 years based upon actual emissions from the source category. This incidence rate is solely from 1 facility emitting ethylene oxide. We estimate 105,000 individuals are exposed to an inhalation cancer risk equal to or greater than 1-in-1 million from this one facility. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.06 based on actual emissions, 16 times below an exposure that the EPA has determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in an HQ greater than 1 (0.1) based upon the 1hour REL. Multipathway screen values for the CEP source category are below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic PB–HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using Tier 1 health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 2-in-1 million for cancer and equal to 1 based upon Tier 1 noncancer screen values for mercury. Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for the CEP and MVP source categories are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis The inhalation cancer risk from the MVP source category is less than 1-in1 million and the chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1. Additionally, the results of the MVP acute screening analysis showed that risks were below a level of concern. Because we are proposing that risks from the MVP source category are acceptable and below the thresholds of concern, we are proposing that the current MACT standards applicable to the MVP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Although we are proposing that the risks from the three modeled facilities within the CEP source category are acceptable, the MIR for actual and allowable emissions are 80-in-1 million caused by ethylene oxide emissions from the HEC process. We considered whether the MACT standards applicable to these emission points in particular, as well as all the current MACT standards VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 applicable to this source category, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the current emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including those considered under the technology review) that could be applied to the CEP source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk assessment. The HEC production process utilizes purified wood pulp or cotton linters to produce alkali cellulose by adding a caustic solution. The alkali cellulose is then reacted with ethylene oxide to produce HEC, which is a thickening agent used in cosmetics, cleaning solutions, and other household products. This process utilizes extended cook-out procedures to reduce the amount of ethylene oxide not consumed during the HEC reaction in conjunction with an add-on control device. This process is subject to standard 3 in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards, which requires a 99-percent reduction in HAP emissions. As discussed in section IV.C below and in the memo titled Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry—Proposed Rule in the docket for this rulemaking, we did not identify any developments in processes, practices, or controls for the CEP source category during our analysis for this proposal. CEP facilities use scrubbers to control emissions of ethylene oxide, as well as other HAP, and these devices are capable of achieving high levels of emission reductions. We did not identify additional technologies capable of further reducing emissions, or improvements to existing technologies that would result in further reduction of emissions. Given that we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies and the acceptable risks remaining after implementation of the NESHAP, we are proposing that the existing standards for the CEP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and revision of the standards is not required. Lastly, regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide (described above), which are due primarily to emission sources that are not part of the CEP source category, we intend to evaluate these facility-wide estimated PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47365 emissions and risks further and may address them in a separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is addressing ethylene oxide in response to the results of the latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, which identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across the country. (NATA is the Agency’s nationwide air toxics screening tool, designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for further examination.) The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA will work with industry and state, local, and tribal air agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged approach to address ethylene oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate, revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide— starting with air toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities and commercial sterilizers; and (2) conducting site-specific risk assessments and, as necessary, implementing emission control strategies for targeted high-risk facilities. The EPA will post updates on its work to address ethylene oxide on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide. 3. Adverse Environmental Effect For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. Because we did not identify any environmental HAP emissions, we expect no adverse environmental effects and are proposing that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For the CEP source category, our analyses showed no exceedances of ecological benchmarks and, therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. We are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for control of HAP emissions from CEP and MVP facilities. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47366 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules In conducting the technology review, we reviewed sources of information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the development of the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as looked for information on improvements in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the development of the NESHAP. The review included reviewing the industry responses to Part 2 of the sector survey, a search of the RBLC database and the EPA’s ADI, reviews of air permits, and a review of relevant literature. After reviewing the information from the aforementioned sources, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce HAP emissions from the CEP and MVP source categories. Therefore, we are proposing that revisions to the NESHAP are not necessary based on our review under CAA section 112(d)(6). While these searches did not result in a finding of any new technologies, the results of the ADI search suggest that the EPA could add biofilter effluent conductivity operating limits and parameter monitoring as an alternative to biofilter pH operating limits and monitoring. This is discussed in section IV.D below. Additional details of our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry—Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various other changes, including electronic submittal of notifications, compliance reports, and performance test reports; addition of periodic emissions testing requirements and incorporation by reference (IBR) of three test methods (listed in section IV.D.5 below); and various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 1. SSM In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.5515 and Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods. However, the EPA is proposing alternative operating limits for periods of startup and shutdown for thermal oxidizers and scrubbers to address issues with parameter monitoring during these periods. As discussed in the memorandum titled Summary of the Startup and Shutdown Data for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, we requested data regarding periods of startup and shutdown as part of the 2018 survey. Facilities did not indicate difficulty meeting the emission standards as a result of startup or shutdown events. However, facilities did indicate difficulty meeting thermal oxidizer and scrubber operating parameters during these periods. This is not unexpected because these periods reflect non-steady PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 state operations and production. For sources equipped with thermal oxidizers, survey responses indicated that they could not meet the setpoint temperature during periods of startup. This is likely due to a temperature drop when the HAP-laden air stream is initially added to the oxidizer. Survey responses indicated that, for sources equipped with scrubbers (wet, water, and caustic), pressure drop, liquid-togas ratios, and scrubber liquid flow rate parameter limits could not be met during startup and shutdown. This is not unexpected since pluggage can occur during non-stable conditions, limiting the liquid flow rate and subsequently reducing the pressure drop across the scrubber due to the lack of liquid flow. Consequently, the EPA is proposing the following alternative operating parameter options to demonstrate continuous compliance and ensure proper control device operations during periods of startup and shutdown: • Wet or caustic scrubber: As an alternative to pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or liquid-to-gas ratio, confirm that the scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and continue operation until emission unit shutdown is complete. Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on equipment design, manufacturer’s recommendations, or other site-specific operating values established for normal operating periods. Do not include these parameters when determining the daily average. • Thermal oxidizer: As an alternative to the minimum firebox temperature, confirm that the oxidizer is operating properly prior to emission unit startup (e.g., firebox temperature has reached the setpoint temperature established in the most recent stack test). Do not include these parameters when determining the daily average. The survey responses for other control devices did not indicate any issues meeting operating parameters during periods of startup and shutdown. One additional survey response requested the addition of a shutdown work practice for process lines and equipment venting. This response suggested that, in the event of a shutdown, it would be appropriate to purge the process gas and/or liquid to an emission control device, recovery device, or return to the process. Additionally, the response suggested that gas streams may be emitted if they contain less than 50 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or the lower explosive limit is less than 10 percent. The Agency is requesting comment to determine if this E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules would be an appropriate work practice. Emissions from venting due to shutdown should be accounted for in the compliance demonstration in the semiannual compliance report. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). 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 sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) 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) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering 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-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47367 discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will result in a violation of the standard for this source category. For example, facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control equipment indicated in the 2018 survey that interlocks would shut down the process if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and facilities may also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat the emissions. The MACT standards are based on a percent reduction of HAP over a 6-month rolling period per group of equipment. Therefore, the malfunction of a singular piece of equipment in a single month over this period is unlikely to result in an exceedance of the standard. The EPA is soliciting information on the type of events that constitute a malfunction event, and best practices and best level of emission control during malfunction events. The EPA is also soliciting information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP emissions during malfunction events for the MVP and CEP source categories, including the cause of malfunctions, the frequency of malfunctions, the duration of malfunctions, and the estimate of HAP emitted during each malfunction. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the 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. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47368 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5515 that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5515 does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5515. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 b. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. d. Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5535. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ available to the Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. e. Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at Table 9 that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ f. Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules (iv) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to Table 9. When a source is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to add language to Table 9 requiring that sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must report the date, time, and duration of such periods. The EPA is also proposing that sources would be required to record information supporting the operating parameter alternatives, including (1) an indication that thermal oxidizers reach set point temperature prior to emission unit startup, and (2) an indication that scrubbers are properly operating prior to emission unit startup. The proposed records are required to demonstrate that alternative operating parameter limits have been met during periods of startup and shutdown. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to Table 9. The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to Table 9 a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to Table 9. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv), which includes a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. g. Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47369 the periodic reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.5580 and Table 8. The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 4. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47370 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. 5-Year Periodic Emissions Testing As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the testing and monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU and is proposing the following change. The EPA is proposing to require facilities that use nonrecovery control devices to conduct periodic air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards and thereafter no longer than 5 years following the previous test. Requiring periodic performance tests would serve as a check on the accuracy of facilities’ mass balance calculations and on the efficiency of the control devices used to achieve compliance with the standards. Periodic performance tests would ensure that control devices are properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes. We specifically request comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements. 3. Electronic Reporting Through this action, we are proposing that owners and operators of cellulose products manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of required initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0415. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 24 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous 24 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air- emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For initial notifications and notifications of compliance status, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators submit notifications as PDFs to CEDRI. For semiannual reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.25 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. The initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports are required to be submitted according to the deadlines specified in 40 CFR 63.5580. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. 25 See Subpart_UUUU_Semiannual_Report.xlsx, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0415. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 26 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 27 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.28 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0415. 4. Biofilter Effluent Conductivity On November 17, 2006, Viskase Companies, Inc., a company subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, which manufactures cellulose food casings, submitted a request to the EPA to monitor biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH for the biofilter control devices at their facilities in Osceola, Arkansas, and Loudon, Tennessee. The request stated that pH is in a range such that effluent conductivity would provide a more accurate operating limit: 26 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 27 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 28 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For strong acids and bases, pH values are not very meaningful indicators of the concentration. The measurement uncertainty is large because pH is a logarithmic scale. Conductivity measurements are more suitable than pH measurements for producing accurate and reproducible estimates of the concentrations of free acids and bases because the relationship between conductivity and concentration is almost linear over a range of concentrations. Based on the information provided by Viskase, the EPA conditionally approved the monitoring request to establish and monitor an effluent conductivity operating limit for the biofilter units and stated that the effluent conductivity operating limit must be based on a performance test and can be supplemented by engineering assessments and/or manufacturer’s recommendations.29 In addition to granting the alternative monitoring request per 40 CFR 63.8(f), the EPA is also proposing an amendment to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, to add biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative parameter to pH. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to revise the operating limits table (Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of biofilter operating limits, revise the performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535 to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of parameters for which operating limits must be established during the compliance demonstration, and revise the continuous compliance with operating limits table (Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of parameters to monitor to demonstrate continuous compliance. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 5. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following documents into 40 CFR 63.14: • ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses—Part 10, was previously approved for incorporation by reference for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63. • ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63. 29 See Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Source Category— Proposed Rule, Appendix E, available in the docket. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 • ASTM D5790–95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63. • ASTM D6348–12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov/ and at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). 6. Technical and Editorial Changes The following lists additional proposed changes that address technical and editorial corrections: • Revise the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5505 to clarify that CS2 storage tanks part of a submerged unloading and storage operation subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, is not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. These types of tanks are not the type of storage vessels in terms of their physical siting and operational design that were intended to be regulated under NSPS Kb, even when these tanks meet the vapor pressure and designed capacity under the rule. These tanks are completely submerged in a common water bath and have no air space within the tanks due to the continuous water layer above the CS2 layer, therefore, the tanks do not have direct CS2 gaseous emissions. • Revise the performance test requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535 to specify the conditions for conducting performance tests; • Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to correct an error in the reference to a test method appendix; • Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add IBR for ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), ASTM D5790–95 (Reapproved 2012), and ASTM D6348–12e1; • Revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5580 and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements tables (Tables 8 and 9 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to include the requirements to record and report information on failures to meet the applicable standard and the corrective actions taken; and • Revise the General Provisions applicability table (Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to align with those sections of the General Provisions that PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47371 have been amended or reserved over time. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? For the proposed rule revisions related to the removal of the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and the additional electronic reporting requirements, the EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed unless indicated specifically otherwise, immediately upon startup. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different timereporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47372 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date. Additionally, we are also proposing new requirements to conduct periodic performance testing every 5 years. Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the first periodic performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors. Considering these scheduling issues, we are proposing that each existing affected source, and each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after August 28, 2000, and on or before September 9, 2019 and uses a nonrecovery control device to comply with the standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019 and uses a non-recovery control device to comply with the standards, we are proposing that owners and operators VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 must conduct the first periodic performance test no later than 60 months following the initial performance test required by 40 CFR 63.5535 and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? There are currently eight facilities operating in the United States that conduct MVP and CEP operations that are subject to the Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU affected source for the MVP source category is each cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operation, as defined in 40 CFR 63.5610. The affected source for the CEP source category is each cellulose ether operation, as defined in 40 CFR 63.5610. B. What are the air quality impacts? The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the MVP and CEP facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 4,300 tpy. Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed requirements, including the removal of the SSM exemption and addition of periodic emissions testing, may reduce emissions by ensuring proper operation of control devices. C. What are the cost impacts? The eight facilities that would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements and would incur periodic emissions testing costs for add-on control devices. The nationwide costs associated with the proposed periodic testing requirements are estimated to be $490,000 (2018$) over the 5 years following promulgation of the amendments. For further information on the requirement being proposed, see section IV.D.2 of this preamble. For further information on the costs associated with the proposed requirements, see the memorandum, Costs and Environmental Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry— Proposed Rule, and the document, Supporting Statement for the NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU), which are both available in the docket for this PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts. D. What are the economic impacts? Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a proposed rule. Based on the costs associated with the periodic testing requirements, no significant economic impacts from the proposed amendments are anticipated. E. What are the benefits? Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that they apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance test results, and semiannual reports will increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more information. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules cellulose-products-manufacturingnational-emission-standards. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0415 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/cellulose-productsmanufacturing-national-emissionstandards. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1974.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are essential in determining compliance and mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the 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. We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements, adding periodic emissions testing, providing biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to monitoring pH, and requiring electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and performance test reports. Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include facilities subject to the NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU). Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU). Estimated number of respondents: Eight. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Responses include initial notifications, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports. Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for this information collection, averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to total 7,256 labor hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47373 Total estimated cost: $954,000 per year, including $834,000 per year in labor costs and $120,000 per year in annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than October 9, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. No small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule. As such, this action will not impose any requirements on small entities. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47374 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the following risk reports titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,’’ for the measurement of toluene and total organic HAP. This method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify the 36 volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of these compounds) listed on the ASTM website. This ASTM has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because their atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D5790–95 (Reapproved 2012), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.’’ This method covers the identification and simultaneous measurement of purgeable volatile organic compounds. It has been validated for treated drinking water, wastewater, and groundwater. ASTM D5790–95 is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 624 and for the analysis of total organic HAP in wastewater samples. For wastewater analyses, this ASTM method should be used with the sampling procedures of EPA Method 25D or an equivalent method in order to be a complete alternative. The ASTM standard is validated for all of the 21 volatile organic HAP (including toluene) targeted by EPA Method 624, but it is also validated for an additional 14 HAP not targeted by the EPA method. The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy’’ as an acceptable alternative to using EPA Method 320 with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. This test method provides the volume concentration of detected analytes. Converting the volume concentration to a mass emission rate using a particular compound’s molecular weight, and the effluent volumetric flow rate, temperature, and pressure is useful for determining the impact of that compound to the atmosphere. When using ASTM D6348– 12e, the following conditions must be met: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348–03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ((Measured Concentration in the Stack))/(%R) × 100. The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See https://www.astm.org/. While the EPA has identified another 14 voluntary consensus standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, in the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.3 of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review— Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities and Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, which are located in the public docket for this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ § 63.5515 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(72), (85), (89), and (91) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * (h) * * * (72) ASTM D5790–95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart UUUU. * * * * * (85) ASTM D6348–12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for § 63.1571(a) and Table 4 to subpart UUUU. * * * * * (89) ASTM D6420–99, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for §§ 63.5799 and 63.5850. * * * * * (91) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for § 63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, and appendix A to this part: Method 325B. * * * * * jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Subpart UUUU—[Amended] 3. Section 63.5505 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: ■ § 63.5505 What emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards must I meet? * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 (f) Carbon disulfide storage tanks part of a submerged unloading and storage operation subject to this part are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984). ■ 4. Section 63.5515 is amended by revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b) introductory text, adding and reserving paragraph (b)(2), and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each such source you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in this subpart at all times. (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for each such source, and after September 9, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47375 levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. * * * * * (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must maintain a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan according the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or reconstruction source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.5535 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing and reserving paragraph (c), revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(7) to read as follows: § 63.5535 What performance tests and other procedures must I use? * * * * * (b) You must conduct each performance test for continuous process vents and combinations of batch and continuous process vents based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested, according to the specific conditions in Table 4 to this Subpart UUUU. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47376 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * (g) * * * (1) Viscose process affected sources that must use non-recovery control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery control devices and incorporate this information in their material balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in § 63.5541. * * * * * (h) * * * (1) Cellulose ether affected sources that must use non-recovery control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery control devices and incorporate this information in their material balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in § 63.5541. * * * * * (i) * * * (7) For biofilters, record the pressure drop across the biofilter beds, inlet gas temperature, and effluent pH or conductivity averaged over the same time period as the compliance demonstration while the vent stream is routed and constituted normally. Locate the pressure, temperature, and pH or conductivity sensors in positions that provide representative measurement of these parameters. Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. * * * * * ■ 6. Section 63.5541 is added to read as follows: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.5541 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? (a) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control device to comply with § 63.5515 constructed or reconstructed before September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test must be performed by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter. (b) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control device to comply with § 63.5515 that commences construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test must be performed no VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 later than 60 months after the initial performance test required by § 63.5535, and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter. ■ 7. Section 63.5545 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(2) to read as follows: § 63.5545 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §§ 63.8(c)(3) and (4)(ii), and 63.5515(b), and 63.5580(c)(6); * * * * * (e) * * * (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS according to the requirements in § 63.8, Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, and according to the applicable performance specification listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.5555 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.5555 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards? * * * * * (d) Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.5515(b). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.5515(b). ■ 9. Section 63.5575 is revised to read as follows: § 63.5575 What notifications must I submit and when? You must submit each notification in Table 7 to this subpart that applies to you by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart. Initial notifications and Notification of Compliance Status Reports shall be electronically submitted in portable document format (PDF) following the procedure specified in § 63.5580(g). ■ 10. Section 63.5580 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(6); ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(4); ■ d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2); PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 e. Adding paragraph (e)(14); and f. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.5580 when? What reports must I submit and * * * * * (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submitting reports under § 63.10, you must submit each compliance report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. * * * * * (6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section. * * * * * (c) * * * (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or reconstruction source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this section is no longer relevant. * * * * * (e) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit or operating limit in this subpart (see Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart), you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (14) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * * * * (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. * * * * * (14) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (g) Submitting notifications or reports electronically. If you are required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). Notifications must be submitted as PDFs to CEDRI. You must use the semi-annual compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The semi-annual compliance report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (h) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (h) of this section. (i) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47377 EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in this paragraph (i). (j) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47378 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (k) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 11. Section 63.5590 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 63.5590 In what form and how long must I keep my records? * * * * * (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 12. Table 2 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Operating Limits As required in § 63.5505(b), you must meet the appropriate operating limits in the following table: For the following control technique . . . you must . . . 1. condenser ................................... maintain the daily average condenser outlet gas or condensed liquid temperature no higher than the value established during the compliance demonstration. a. for periods of normal operation, maintain the daily average thermal oxidizer firebox temperature no lower than the value established during the compliance demonstration b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing sources and new or reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, and immediately upon startup for new or reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, maintain documentation for periods of startup demonstrating that the oxidizer was properly operating (e.g., firebox temperature had reached the setpoint temperature) prior to emission unit startup. a. for periods of normal operation, maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration; b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing sources and new or reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019], and immediately upon startup for new or reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, maintain documentation for periods of startup and shutdown to confirm that the scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and continues to operate properly until emission unit shutdown is complete. Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on equipment design, manufacturer’s recommendations, or other site-specific operating values established for normal operating periods. a. for periods of normal operation, maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration; b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing sources and new or reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, and immediately upon startup for new or reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, maintain documentation for periods of startup and shutdown to confirm that the scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and continues to operate properly until emission unit shutdown is complete. Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on equipment design, manufacturer’s recommendations, or other site-specific operating values established for normal operating periods. maintain the presence of a pilot flame. maintain the daily average biofilter inlet gas temperature, biofilter effluent pH or conductivity, and pressure drop within the operating values established during the compliance demonstration. 2. thermal oxidizer .......................... 3. water scrubber ............................ 4. caustic scrubber .......................... jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely 5. flare ............................................. 6. biofilter ........................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For the following control technique . . . you must . . . 7. carbon absorber .......................... maintain the regeneration frequency, total regeneration adsorber stream mass or volumetric flow during carbon bed regeneration, and temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle(s)) for each regeneration cycle within the values established during the compliance demonstration. maintain the daily average absorption liquid flow, absorption liquid temperature, and steam flow within the values established during the compliance demonstration. if using a CEMS, maintain the daily average control efficiency of each control device no lower than the value established during the compliance demonstration. a. if you wish to establish alternative operating parameters, submit the application for approval of the alternative operating parameters no later than the notification of the performance test or CEMS performance evaluation or no later than 60 days prior to any other initial compliance demonstration; b. the application must include: Information justifying the request for alternative operating parameters (such as the infeasibility or impracticality of using the operating parameters in this final rule); a description of the proposed alternative control device operating parameters; the monitoring approach; the frequency of measuring and recording the alternative parameters; how the operating limits are to be calculated; and information documenting that the alternative operating parameters would provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the standard; c. install, operate, and maintain the alternative parameter monitoring systems in accordance with the application approved by the Administrator; d. establish operating limits during the initial compliance demonstration based on the alternative operating parameters included in the approved application; and e. maintain the daily average alternative operating parameter values within the values established during the compliance demonstration. a. submit for approval no later than the notification of the performance test or CEMS performance evaluation or no later than 60 days prior to any other initial compliance demonstration a proposed site-specific plan that includes: A description of the alternative control device; test results verifying the performance of the control device; the appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored; and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits; b. install, operate, and maintain the parameter monitoring system for the alternative control device in accordance with the plan approved by the Administrator; c. establish operating limits during the initial compliance demonstration based on the operating parameters for the alternative control device included in the approved plan; and d. maintain the daily average operating parameter values for the alternative control technique within the values established during the compliance demonstration. 8. oil absorber ................................. 9. any of the control techniques specified in this table. 10. any of the control techniques specified in this table. 11. alternative control technique ..... 13. Table 3 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: Table 3 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Initial Compliance With Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards ■ As required in §§ 63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you must jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47379 demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work practice standards according to the requirements in the following table: For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 1. the sum of all viscose process vents. a. each existing cellulose food casing operation. i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 25% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. (1) reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 25% based on a 6-month rolling average; (2) for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and (3) comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47380 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . b. each new cellulose food casing operation. i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. c. each existing rayon operation .. i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 35% within 3 years after the effective date based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems; and (1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 75%; (2) you have a record of the range of operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 75%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. (1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 35% within 3 years after the effective date; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 35%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; and (1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 40% within 8 years after the effective date; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 40%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of the total sulfide emissions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 ii. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 40% within 8 years after the effective date based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 For . . . VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 47381 at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . d. each new rayon operation ........ i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75%; based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. e. each existing or new cellulosic sponge operation. i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. f. each existing or new cellophane operation. i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device (except for retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation), route the vent stream through a closedvent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. (1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 75%; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 75%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide missions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. (1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 75%; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 75%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine and the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. (1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 75%; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 75%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47382 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 2. the sum of all solvent coating process vents. a. each existing or new cellophane operation. i. 3. the sum of all cellulose ether process vents. a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation using a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance; or. i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions by at least 99%; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closedvent systems; or b. each existing or new cellulose ether operation using a material balance compliance demonstration to demonstrate initial compliance. i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions by at least 99% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems; or each existing or new cellulose ether operation. operate and maintain the closedloop system for cellulose ether operations. (1) the average uncontrolled toluene emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 95%; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled toluene emissions were reduced by at least 95%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of toluene emissions; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. (1) average uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions, measured during the performance test or determined using engineering estimates are reduced by at least 99%; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the performance test during which the average uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions were reduced by at least 99%; and (3) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; or (1) average uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering estimates are reduced by at least 99%; (2) you have a record of the average operation parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions were reduced by at least 99%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total organic HAP emissions; (4) if you use extended cookout to comply, you measure the HAP charged to the reactor, record the grade of product produced, and then calculate reactor emissions prior to extended cookout by taking a percentage of the total HAP charged. you have a record certifying that a closed-loop system is in use for cellulose ether operations. 4. closed-loop systems .................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions by at least 95% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 5. each carbon disulfide unloading and storage operation. a. each existing or new viscose process affected source. i. reduce uncontrolled carbon disulfide emissions by at least 83% from unloading and storage operations based on a 6month rolling average if you use an alternative control technique not listed in this table for carbon disulfide unloading and storage operations; if using a control device to reduce emissions, route emissions through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems; ii. reduce uncontrolled carbon disulfide by at least 0.14% from viscose process vents based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems; (1) you have a record documenting the 83% reduction in uncontrolled carbon disulfide emissions; and (2) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; iii. install a nitrogen unloading and storage system; or iv. install a nitrogen unloading system; reduce uncontrolled carbon disulfide by at least 0.045% from viscose process vents based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47383 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM (1) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for viscose process vents at existing or new cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operations, as applicable; (2) the 0.14% reduction must be in addition to the reduction already required for viscose process vents at existing or new cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operations, as applicable; and (3) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; you have a record certifying that a nitrogen unloading and storage system is in use; or (1) you have a record certifying that a nitrogen unloading system is in use; (2) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for viscose process vents at existing or new cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operations, as applicable; (3) the 0.045% reduction must be in addition to the reduction already required for viscose process vents at cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operations, as applicable; and (4) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. 09SEP2 47384 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 6. each toluene storage vessel ...... a. each existing or new cellophane operation. i. 7. equipment leaks ........................ a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. i. (1) the average uncontrolled toluene emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 95%; (2) you have a record of the average operating parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average uncontrolled toluene emissions were reduced by at least 95%; (3) you prepare a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of toluene emissions; and (4) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. you comply with the applicable requirements described in the Notification of Compliance Status Report provisions in § 63.182(a)(2) and (c)(1) through (3), except that references to the term ‘‘process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart; or you comply with the applicable requirements described in the Initial Compliance Status Report provisions of § 63.1039(a), except that references to the term ‘‘process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart. you comply with the applicability and Group 1/Group 2 determination provisions of § 63.144 and the initial compliance provisions of §§ 63.105 and 63.145. you install emission suppression equipment and conduct an initial inspection according to the provisions of to §§ 63.133 through 63.137. reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions by at least 95% based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. if using a control device to reduce emissions, route the emissions through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. comply with the applicable equipment leak standards of §§ 63.162 through 63.179; or jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 ii. comply with the applicable equipment leak standards of §§ 63.1021 through 63.1027. 8. all sources of wastewater emissions. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. comply with the applicable wastewater provisions of § 63.105 and §§ 63.132 through 63.140. 9. liquid streams in open systems each existing or new cellulose ether operation. 10. closed-vent system used to route emissions to a control device. a. each existing or new affected source. comply with the applicable provisions of § 63.149, except that references to ‘‘chemical manufacturing process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart. i. conduct annual inspections, repair leaks, and maintain records as specified in § 63.148. 11. closed-vent system containing a bypass line that could divert a vent stream away from a control device, except for equipment needed for safety purposes (described in § 63.148(f)(3)). a. each existing or new affected source. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 i. install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator as specified in § 63.148(f)(1); or Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM (1) you conduct an initial inspection of the closed-vent system and maintain records according to § 63.148; (2) you prepare a written plan for inspecting unsafe-to-inspect and difficult-to-inspect equipment according to § 63.148(g)(2) and (h)(2); and (3) you repair any leaks and maintain records according to § 63.148. you have a record documenting that you installed a flow indicator as specified in Table 1 to this subpart; or 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . 12. heat exchanger system that cools process equipment or materials in the process unit. a. each existing or new affected source. 14. Table 4 to Subpart UUUU is amended to read as follows: for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . ii. secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a carseal or lock-and-key type configuration and inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once per month as specified in § 63.148(f)(2). i. monitor and repair the heat exchanger system according to § 63.104(a) through (e), except that references to ‘‘chemical manufacturing process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, cellophane, or cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart. you have record documenting that you have secured the bypass line valve as specified in Table 1 to this subpart. Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Requirements for Performance Tests ■ As required in §§ 63.5530(b) and 63.5535(a), (b), (g)(1), and (h)(1), you (1) you determine that the heat exchanger system is exempt from monitoring requirements because it meets one of the conditions in § 63.104(a)(1) through (6), and you document this finding in your Notification of Compliance Status Report; or (2) if your heat exchanger system is not exempt, you identify in your Notification of Compliance Status Report the HAP or other representative substance that you will monitor, or you prepare and maintain a site-specific plan containing the information required by § 63.104(c) (1) (i) through (iv) that documents the procedures you will use to detect leaks by monitoring surrogate indicators of the leak. must conduct performance tests, other initial compliance demonstrations, and CEMS performance evaluations and establish operating limits according to the requirements in the following table: For . . . at . . . you must . . . using . . . according to the following requirements . . . 1. the sum of all process vents ................ a. the sum of all process vents. i. select sampling port’s location and the number of traverse points;. ii. determine velocity and volumetric flow rate;. EPA Method 1 or 1A in appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60 of this chapter; EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 of this chapter. (1) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A–2 to part 60 of this chapter; or, sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet to each control device; you may use EPA Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G as an alternative to using EPA Method 2, as appropriate; you may use EPA Method 3A or 3B as an alternative to using EPA Method 3; or, you may use ASME PTC 19.10–1981— Part 10 as an alternative to using the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) in EPA Method 3B. iii. conduct gas analysis; and, ................ (2) ASME PTC 19.10–1981—Part 10 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14); and, 2. the sum of all viscose process vents ... jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47385 a. each existing or new viscose process source. iv. measure moisture content of the stack gas. i. measure total sulfide emissions .......... EPA Method 4 in appendix A–3 to part 60 of this chapter. (1) EPA Method 15 in appendix A–5 to part 60 of this chapter; or (2) carbon disulfide and/or hydrogen sulfide CEMS, as applicable; VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous viscose process vents and combinations of batch and continuous viscose process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch viscose process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (d) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration; or (a) you must measure emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device using CEMS; 47386 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . 3. the sum of all solvent coating process vents. you must . . . a. each existing or new cellophane operation. according to the following requirements . . . using . . . i. measure toluene emissions ................. (1) EPA Method 18 in appendix A–6 to part 60 of this chapter, or Method 320 in appendix A to part 63; or. (2) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference— see § 63.14); or. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (3) ASTM D6348–12e1 ........................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 (b) you must install, operate, and maintain the CEMS according to the applicable performance specification (PS– 7, PS–8, PS–9, or PS–15) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and (c) you must collect CEMS emissions data at the inlet and outlet of each control device during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CEMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use EPA Method 18 or 320 to determine the control efficiency of any control device for organic compounds; for a combustion device, you must use only HAP that are present in the inlet to the control device to characterize the percent reduction across the combustion device; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous solvent coating process vents and combinations of batch and continuous solvent coating process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only where: the target compound(s) are known and are listed in ASTM D6420–99 as measurable; this ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because their atomic mass is less than 35; ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous solvent coating process vents and combinations of batch and continuous solvent coating process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 4. the sum of all cellulose ether process vents. you must . . . a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. according to the following requirements . . . using . . . i. measure total organic HAP emissions (1) EPA Method 18 in appendix A–6 to part 60 of this chapter or Method 320 in appendix A to part 63, or. (2) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference— see § 63.14); or. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 47387 09SEP2 (b) you may use ASTM D6348–12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320 only where the following conditions are met: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack))/(%R) × 100. (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous solvent coating process vents and combinations of batch and continuous solvent coating process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use EPA Method 18 or 320 to determine the control efficiency of any control device for organic compounds; for a combustion device, you must use only HAP that are present in the inlet to the control device to characterize the percent reduction across the combustion device; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous cellulose ether process vents and combinations of batch and continuous cellulose ether process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch cellulose ether process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch cellulose ether process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; 47388 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . you must . . . according to the following requirements . . . using . . . jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (3) ASTM D6348–12e1 ........................... (3) EPA Method 25 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter; or. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 (b) you may use ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only where: the target compound(s) are known and are listed in ASTM D6420–99 as measurable; this ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because their atomic mass is less than 35; ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous cellulose ether process vents and combinations of batch and continuous cellulose ether process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch cellulose ether process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial performance test and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial performance test. (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use ASTM D6348–12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320 only where the following conditions are met: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack))/(%R) × 100. (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous solvent coating process vents and combinations of batch and continuous solvent coating process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous cellulose ether process vents and combinations of batch and continuous cellulose ether process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . you must . . . according to the following requirements . . . using . . . (4) EPA Method 25A in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 5. each toluene storage vessel ................ a. each existing or new cellophane operation. i. measure toluene emissions ................. (1) EPA Method 18 in appendix A–6 to part 60 of this chapter or Method 320 in appendix A to part 63; or. (2) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference— see § 63.14); or. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 47389 09SEP2 (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch cellulose ether process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial performance test and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial performance test; or (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use EPA Method 25A if: an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required in order to comply with the emission limit; the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the control device and the required level of control are such as to result in exhaust volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or because of the high control efficiency of the control device, the anticipated volatile organic matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous cellulose ether process vents and combinations of batch and continuous cellulose ether process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch cellulose ether process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and, (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial performance test and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial performance test. (a) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use EPA Method 18 or 320 to determine the control efficiency of any control device for organic compounds; for a combustion device, you must use only HAP that are present in the inlet to the control device to characterize the percent reduction across the combustion device; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous storage vessel vents and combinations of batch and continuous storage vessel vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535 for continuous process vents; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch storage vessel vents as specified in § 63.490(c) for batch process vents, except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and, (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration; or (a) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; 47390 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . at . . . you must . . . according to the following requirements . . . using . . . jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (3) ASTM D6348–12e1 ........................... 6. the sum of all process vents controlled using a flare. 7. equipment leaks ................................... a. each existing or new affected source. a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. i. measure visible emissions ................... (1) EPA Method 22 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter. i. measure leak rate ................................ (1) applicable equipment leak test methods in § 63.180; or. (2) applicable equipment leak test methods in § 63.1023. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 (b) you may use ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only where: the target compound(s) are known and are listed in ASTM D6420–99 as measurable; this ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because their atomic mass is less than 35; ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method; (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous storage vessel vents and combinations of batch and continuous storage vessel vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535 for continuous process vents; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch storage vessel vents as specified in § 63.490(c) for batch process vents, except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and, (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. (a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and outlet of each control device; (b) you may use ASTM D6348–12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320 only where the following conditions are met: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack))/(%R) × 100. (c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous solvent coating process vents and combinations of batch and continuous solvent coating process vents at normal operating conditions, as specified in § 63.5535; (d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c), except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission reductions required for process vents under subpart U of this part; and (e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CPMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. (a) you must conduct the flare visible emissions test according to § 63.11(b). (a) you must follow all requirements for the applicable equipment leak test methods in § 63.180; or (a) you must follow all requirements for the applicable equipment leak test methods in § 63.1023. Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules according to the following requirements . . . For . . . at . . . you must . . . using . . . 8. all sources of wastewater emissions .... a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. i. measure wastewater HAP emissions .. (1) applicable wastewater test methods and procedures in §§ 63.144 and 63.145; or. (2) applicable wastewater test methods and procedures in §§ 63.144 and 63.145, using ASTM D5790–95 (Reapproved 2012) as an alternative to EPA Method 624 in appendix A to part 163 of this chapter.. 9. any emission point ................................ a. each existing or new affected source using a CEMS to demonstrate compliance. 15. Table 5 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: i. conduct a CEMS performance evaluation. (1) applicable requirements in § 63.8 and applicable performance specification (PS–7, PS–8, PS–9, or PS–15) in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. Table 5 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Continuous Compliance With Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards ■ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 As required in § 63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance 47391 (a) You must follow all requirements for the applicable wastewater test methods and procedures in §§ 63.144 and 63.145; or (a) you must follow all requirements for the applicable waste water test methods and procedures in §§ 63.144 and 63.145, except that you may use ASTM D5790–95 (Reapproved 2012) as an alternative to EPA Method 624, under the condition that this ASTM method be used with the sampling procedures of EPA Method 25D or an equivalent method. (a) you must conduct the CEMS performance evaluation during the period of the initial compliance demonstration according to the applicable requirements in § 63.8 and the applicable performance specification (PS–7, PS– 8, PS–9, or PS–15) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; (b) you must install, operate, and maintain the CEMS according to the applicable performance specification (PS– 7, PS–8, PS–9, or PS–15) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and (c) you must collect CEMS emissions data at the inlet and outlet of each control device during the period of the initial compliance demonstration and determine the CEMS operating limit during the period of the initial compliance demonstration. with the appropriate emission limits and work practice standards according to the requirements in the following table: For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. the sum of all viscose process vents. a. each existing or new viscose process affected source. (1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; and (3) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. 2. the sum of all solvent coating process vents. a. each existing or new cellophane operation. 3. the sum of all cellulose ether process vents. a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation using a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance; or. i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least the specified percentage based on a 6month rolling average;. ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device (except for retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation), route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and. iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems (except for retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation). i. reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions by at least 95% based on a 6-month rolling average;. ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and. iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions by at least 99%;. ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and,. iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems; or. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of toluene emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of toluene emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; and (3) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. (1) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; or (2) if using extended cookout to comply, monitoring reactor charges and keeping records to show that extended cookout was employed. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47392 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For . . . 4. closed-loop systems 5. each carbon disulfide unloading and storage operation. at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . b. each existing or new cellulose ether operation using a material balance compliance demonstration to demonstrate initial compliance. i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions by at least 99% based on a 6month rolling average;. ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to control device; and. iii. comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. each existing or new cellulose either operation. a. each existing or new viscose process affected source. operate and maintain a closed-loop system ... (1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total organic HAP emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of total organic HAP emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; (3) if using extended cookout to comply, monitoring reactor charges and keeping records to show that extended cookout was employed; (4) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. keeping a record certifying that a closed-loop system is in use for cellulose ether operations. (1) keeping a record documenting the 83% reduction in carbon disulfide emissions; and (2) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closedvent systems; i. reduce uncontrolled carbon disulfide emissions by at least 83% based on a 6-month rolling average if you use an alternative control technique not listed in this table for carbon disulfide unloading and storage operations; if using a control device to reduce emissions, route emissions through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems;. ii. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions by at least 0.14% from viscose process vents based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems;. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 iii. install a nitrogen unloading and storage system; or. iv. install a nitrogen unloading system; reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions by at least 0.045% from viscose process vents based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard for closed-vent systems. 6. each toluene storage vessel. a. each existing or new cellophane operation. a. each existing or new cellophane operation 7. equipment leaks ...... a. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. i. applicable equipment leak standards of §§ 63.162 through 63.179; or. ii. applicable equipment leak standards of §§ 63.1021 through 63.1037. 8. all sources of wastewater emissions. each existing or new cellulose either operation. each existing or new cellulose ether operation. applicable wastewater provisions of § 63.105 and §§ 63.132 through 63.140.. 9. liquid streams in open systems. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 comply with the applicable provisions of § 63.149, except that references to ‘‘chemical manufacturing process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart. PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; and (3) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; Keeping a record certifying that a nitrogen unloading and storage system is in use; or (1) keeping a record certifying that a nitrogen unloading system is in use; (2) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; (3) documenting the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; and (4) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. (1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of toluene emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of toluene emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; and (3) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems. complying with the applicable equipment leak continuous compliance provisions of §§ 63.162 through 63.179; or complying with the applicable equipment leak continuous compliance provisions of §§ 63.1021 through 63.1037. complying with the applicable wastewater continuous compliance provisions of §§ 63.105, 63.143, and 63.148. conducting inspections, repairing failures, documenting delay of repair, and maintaining records of failures and corrective actions according to §§ 63.133 through 63.137. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules 47393 For . . . at . . . for the following emission limit or work practice standard . . . you must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 10. closed-vent system used to route emissions to a control device. 11. closed-vent system containing a bypass line that could divert a vent stream away from a control device, except for equipment needed for safety purposes (described in § 63.148(f)(3). each existing or new affected source. conduct annual inspections, repair leaks, maintain records as specified in § 63.148. conducting the inspections, repairing leaks, and maintaining records according to § 63.148. a. each existing or new affected source. i. install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator as specified in § 63.148(f)(1); or. (1) taking readings from the flow indicator at least once every 15 minutes; (2) maintaining hourly records of flow indicator operation and detection of any diversion during the hour, and (3) recording all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control stream or the flow indicator is not operating; or ..................................... ii. secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or lock-and-key type configuration and inspect the seal or mechanism at least once per month as specified in § 63.148(f)(2).. a. each existing or new affected source. i. monitor and repair the heat exchanger system according to § 63.104(a) through (e), except that references to ‘‘chemical manufacturing process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, cellophane, or cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart. (1) maintaining a record of the monthly visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism for the bypass line; and (2) recording all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lockand-key type lock has been checked out. (1) monitoring for HAP compounds, other substances, or surrogate indicators at the frequency specified in § 63.104(b) or (c); (2) repairing leaks within the time period specified in § 63.104(d)(1); (3) confirming that the repair is successful as specified in § 63.104(d)(2); (4) following the procedures in § 63.104(e) if you implement delay of repair; and (5) recording the results of inspections and repair according to § 63.104(f)(1). 12. heat exchanger system that cools process equipment or materials in the process unit. 16. Table 6 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: ■ Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Continuous Compliance With Operating Limits with the appropriate operating limits according to the requirements in the following table: As required in § 63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance For the following control technique . . . for the following operating limit . . . you must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. condenser ........................ maintain the daily average condenser outlet gas or condensed liquid temperature no higher than the value established during the compliance demonstration. 2. thermal oxidizer ............... a. for normal operations, maintain the daily average thermal oxidizer firebox temperature no lower than the value established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the condenser outlet gas or condensed liquid temperature data according to § 63.5545; reducing the condenser outlet gas temperature data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily average condenser outlet gas or condensed liquid temperature no higher than the value established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the thermal oxidizer firebox temperature data according to § 63.5545; reducing the thermal oxidizer firebox temperature data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily average thermal oxidizer firebox temperature no lower than the value established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the appropriate, site-specific data needed to demonstrate that the oxidizer was properly operating prior to emission unit start up; and excluding firebox temperature from the daily averages during emission unit startup. collecting the scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate data according to § 63.5545; reducing the scrubber parameter data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily scrubber parameter values within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration. b. for periods of startup, maintain documentation demonstrating that the oxidizer was properly operating (e.g., firebox temperature had reached the setpoint temperature) prior to emission unit startup. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 3. water scrubber ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 a. for normal operations, maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47394 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules For the following control technique . . . 4. caustic scrubber ............... 5. flare .................................. for the following operating limit . . . you must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . b. for periods of startup and shutdown, maintain documentation to confirm that the scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and continues to operate properly until emission unit shutdown is complete. Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on equipment design, manufacturer’s recommendations, or other sitespecific operating values established for normal operating periods. a. for normal operations, maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the appropriate, site-specific data needed to demonstrate that the scrubber was operating properly during emission unit startup and emission unit shutdown; and excluding parameters from the daily average calculations. b. for periods of startup and shutdown, maintain documentation to confirm that the scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and continues to operate properly until emission unit shutdown is complete. Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on equipment design, manufacturer’s recommendations, or other sitespecific operating values established for normal operating periods. maintain the presence of a pilot flame ........................... 6. biofilter ............................. maintain the daily average biofilter inlet gas temperature, biofilter effluent pH or conductivity, and pressure drop within the values established during the compliance demonstration. 7. carbon absorber ............... maintain the regeneration frequency, total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow during carbon bed regeneration and temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle(s)) for each regeneration cycle within the values established during the compliance demonstration. 8. oil absorber ...................... maintain the daily average absorption liquid flow, absorption liquid temperature, and steam flow within the values established during the compliance demonstration. 9. any of the control techniques specified in this table. if using a CEMS, maintain the daily average control efficiency for each control device no lower than the value established during the compliance demonstration. 17. Table 7 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ collecting the scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity data according to § 63.5545; reducing the scrubber parameter data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily scrubber parameter values within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the appropriate, site-specific data needed to demonstrate that the scrubber was operating properly during emission unit startup and emission unit shutdown; and excluding parameters from the daily average calculations. collecting the pilot flame data according to § 63.5545; and maintaining the presence of the pilot flame. collecting the biofilter inlet gas temperature, biofilter effluent pH or conductivity, and biofilter pressure drop data according to § 63.5545; reducing the biofilter parameter data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily biofilter parameter values within the values established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the data on regeneration frequency, total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow during carbon bed regeneration and temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle(s)) for each regeneration cycle according to § 63.5545; and maintaining carbon absorber parameter values for each regeneration cycle within the values established during the compliance demonstration. collecting the absorption liquid flow, absorption liquid temperature, and steam flow data according to § 63.5545; reducing the oil absorber parameter data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily oil absorber parameter values within the values established during the compliance demonstration. collecting CEMS emissions data at the inlet and outlet of each control device according to § 63.5545; determining the control efficiency values for each control device using the inlet and outlet CEMS emissions data; reducing the control efficiency values for each control device to daily averages; and maintaining the daily average control efficiency for each control device no lower than the value established during the compliance demonstration. Table 7 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Notifications As required in §§ 63.5490(c)(4), 63.5530(c), 63.5575, and 63.5595(b), you must submit the appropriate notifications specified in the following table: If you . . . then you must . . . 1. are required to conduct a performance test ........................................ submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as specified in §§ 63.7(b)(1) and 63.9(e). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules If you . . . then you must . . . 2. are required to conduct a CMS performance evaluation ..................... submit a notification of intent to conduct a CMS performance evaluation at least 60 calendar days before the CMS performance evaluation is scheduled to begin, as specified in §§ 63.8(e)(2) and 63.9(g). submit a request to use alternative monitoring method no later than the notification of the initial performance test or CMS performance evaluation or 60 days prior to any other initial compliance demonstration, as specified in § 63.8(f)(4). submit an initial notification no later than 120 days after June 11, 2002, as specified in § 63.9(b)(2). submit an initial notification no later than 120 days after you become subject to this subpart, as specified in § 63.9(b)(3). submit a request for extension of compliance no later than 120 days before the compliance date, as specified in §§ 63.9(c) and 63.6(i)(4). notify the Administrator of your compliance obligations no later than the initial notification dates established in § 63.9(b) for new sources not subject to the special provisions, as specified in § 63.9(d). notify the Administrator of the anticipated date for conducting the observations specified in § 63.6(h)(5), as specified in §§ 63.6(h)(4) and 63.9(f). a. submit a Notification of Compliance Status Report, as specified in § 63.9(h); b. submit the Notification of Compliance Status Report, including the performance test, CEMS performance evaluation, and any other initial compliance demonstration results within 240 calendar days following the compliance date specified in § 63.5495; and c. beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], submit all subsequent Notifications of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in § 63.5580(g), (j), and (k). comply with the notification requirements specified in § 63.182(a)(1) and (2), (b), and (c)(1) through (3) for equipment leaks, with the Notification of Compliance Status Reports required in subpart H included in the Notification of Compliance Status Report required in this subpart. comply with the notification requirements specified in § 63.1039(a) for equipment leaks, with the Notification Compliance Status Reports required in subpart UU of this part included in the Notification of Compliance Status Report required in this subpart. comply with the notification requirements specified in §§ 63.146(a) and (b), 63.151, and 63.152(a)(1) through (3) and (b)(1) through (5) for wastewater, with the Notification of Compliance Status Reports required in subpart G of this part included in the Notification of Compliance Status Report required in this subpart. 3. wish to use an alternative monitoring method ..................................... 4. start up your affected source before June 11, 2002 ........................... 5. start up your new or reconstructed source on or after June 11, 2002 6. cannot comply with the relevant standard by the applicable compliance date. 7. are subject to special requirements as specified in § 63.6(b)(3) and (4). 8. are required to conduct visible emission observations to determine the compliance of flares as specified in § 63.11(b)(4). 9. are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 to this subpart. 10. comply with the equipment leak requirements of subpart H of this part for existing or new cellulose ether affected sources. 11. comply with the equipment leak requirements of subpart UU of this part for existing or new cellulose ether affected sources. 12. comply with the wastewater requirements of subparts F and G of this part for existing or new cellulose ether affected sources. 18. Table 8 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: ■ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47395 Table 8 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Reporting Requirements As required in § 63.5580, you must submit the appropriate reports specified in the following table: You must submit a compliance report, which must contain the following information . . . and you must submit the report . . . 1. if there are no deviations from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard during the reporting period, then the report must contain the information specified in § 63.5580(c);. semiannually as specified in § 63.5580(b); beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in § 63.5580(g). 2. if there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control, then the report must contain the information specified in § 63.5580(c)(6);. 3. if there is a deviation from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard during the reporting period, then the report must contain the information specified in § 63.5580(c) and (d);. 4. if there were periods during which the CMS was out-of-control, then the report must contain the information specified in § 63.5580(e);. 5. if prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSM plan, then the report must contain the information specified in § 63.10(d)(5)(i);. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47396 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules You must submit a compliance report, which must contain the following information . . . and you must submit the report . . . 6. if prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions that are not consistent with your SSM plan, then the report must contain the information specified in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii);. 7. the report must contain any change in information already provided, as specified in § 63.9(j);. 8. for cellulose ether affected sources complying with the equipment leak requirements of subpart H of this part, the report must contain the information specified in § 63.182(a)(3) and (6) and (d)(2) through (4);. 9. for cellulose ether affected sources complying with the equipment leak requirements of subpart UU of this part, the report must contain the information specified in § 63.1039(b);. 10. for cellulose ether affected sources complying with the wastewater requirements of subparts F and G of this part, the report must contain the information specified in §§ 63.146(c) through (e) and 63.152(a)(4) and (5) and (c) through (e);. 11. for affected sources complying with the closed-vent system provisions in § 63.148, the report must contain the information specified in § 63.148(j)(1);. 12. for affected sources complying with the bypass line provisions in § 63.148(f), the report must contain the information specified in § 63.148(j)(2) and (3);. 13. for affected sources invoking the delay of repair provisions in § 63.104(e) for heat exchanger systems, the next compliance report must contain the information in § 63.104(f)(2)(i) through (iv); if the leak remains unrepaired, the information must also be submitted in each subsequent compliance report until the repair of the leak is reported; and. 14. for storage vessels subject to the emission limits and work practice standards in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU, the report must contain the periods of planned routine maintenance during which the control device does not comply with the emission limits or work practice standards in Table 1 to this subpart. 19. Table 9 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: Table 9 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Recordkeeping Requirements ■ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 As required in § 63.5585, you must keep the appropriate records specified in the following table: If you operate . . . then you must keep . . . and the record(s) must contain . . . 1. an existing or new affected source ............... a copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart. 2. an existing or new affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 9, 2019. a. the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (iv) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status Report that you submitted, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), and any compliance report required under this subpart. i. SSM plan; ii. when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are consistent with the procedures specified in the SSM plan, records demonstrating that the procedures specified in the plan were followed; iii. records of the occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction; and iv. when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not consistent with the procedures specified in the SSM plan, records of the actions taken for that event. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 If you operate . . . then you must keep . . . and the record(s) must contain . . . b. records related to startup and shutdown, failures to meet the standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. i. record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was subject to the alternative operating parameters applicable to startup and shutdown; ii. in the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the date, time and duration of each failure; iii. for each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions; and iv. record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.5515(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. i. record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was subject to alternative operating parameters applicable to startup and shutdown; ii. in the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the date, time and duration of each failure; iii. for each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions; and iv. record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.5515(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. i. information regarding the installation of the CMS sampling source probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device); ii. performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system; iii. performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations); iv. ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §§ 63.8(c)(3) and (4)(ii), 63.5515(b), and 63.5580(c)(6); v. ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d)(2); and vi. ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (c)(9)– (14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i) and 63.5585. all results of performance tests, CEMS performance evaluations, and any other initial compliance demonstrations, including analysis of samples, determination of emissions, and raw data. 3. a new or reconstructed affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. a. records related to startup and shutdown, failures to meet the standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions. 4. an existing or new affected source ............... a. a site-specific monitoring plan ..................... 5. an existing or new affected source ............... records of performance tests and CEMS performance evaluations, as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii) and any other initial compliance demonstrations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 47397 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47398 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules If you operate . . . then you must keep . . . and the record(s) must contain . . . 6. an existing or new affected source ............... a. records for each CEMS ............................... i. 7. an existing or new affected source ............... a. records for each CPMS ............................... 8. an existing or new cellulose ether affected ether source. 9. an existing or new viscose process affected source. 10. an existing or new viscose process affected source. records of closed-loop systems ....................... 11. an existing or new viscose process affected source. records of calculations ..................................... 12. an existing or new cellulose ether affected source. a. extended cookout records ............................ records of nitrogen unloading and storage systems or nitrogen unloading systems. records of material balances ............................ 13. an existing or new cellulose ether affected source. a. equipment leak records ................................ 14. an existing or new cellulose ether affected source. 15. an existing or new affected source ............. 16. an existing or new affected source ............. wastewater records .......................................... closed-vent system records ............................. a. bypass line records ...................................... 17. an existing or new affected source ............. heat exchanger system records ....................... 18. an existing or new affected source ............. control device maintenance records ................ 19. an existing or new affected source ............. safety device records ....................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 records described in § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi); ii. previous (superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan, with the program of corrective action included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2); iii. request for alternatives to relative accuracy test for CEMS as required in § 63.8(f)(6)(i); iv. records of the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period; and v. records required in Table 6 to Subpart UUUU to show continuous compliance with the operating limit. i. records required in Table 6 to Subpart UUUU to show continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to you; and ii. results of each CPMS calibration, validation check, and inspection required by § 63.5545(b)(4). records certifying that a closed-loop system is in use for cellulose ether operations. records of nitrogen unloading and storage systems or nitrogen unloading systems all pertinent data from the material balances used to estimate the 6-month rolling average percent reduction in HAP emissions. documenting the percent reduction in HAP emissions using pertinent data from the material balances. i. the amount of HAP charged to the reactor; ii. the grade of product produced; iii. the calculated amount of HAP remaining before extended cookout; and iv. information showing that extended cookout was employed. i. the records specified in § 63.181 for equipment leaks; or ii. the records specified in 63.1038 for equipment leaks. the records specified in §§ 63.105, 63.147, and 63.152(f) and (g) for wastewater. the records specified in § 63.148(i). i. hourly records of flow indicator operation and detection of any diversion during the hour and records of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control stream or the flow indicator is not operating; or ii. the records of the monthly visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism and of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out and records of any car-seal that has broken. records of the results of inspections and repair according to source § 63.104(f)(1). records of planned routine maintenance for control devices used to comply with the percent reduction emission limit for storage vessels in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU. a record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe conditions according to § 63.5505(d). E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules 20. Table 10 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows: Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU ■ 47399 appropriate General Provisions requirements specified in the following table: As required in §§ 63.5515(h) and 63.5600, you must comply with the Citation Subject § 63.1 ......................................... Applicability .............. § 63.2 ......................................... § 63.3 ......................................... § 63.4 ......................................... § 63.5 ......................................... § 63.6(a) .................................... § 63.6(b)(1) through (4) ............. § 63.6(b)(5) ................................ § 63.6(b)(6) ................................ § 63.6(b)(7) ................................ § 63.6(c)(1) and (2) ................... § 63.6(c)(3) and (4) ................... § 63.6(c)(5) ................................ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.6(d) .................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............................. Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Definitions ................ Definitions for part 63 standards ............... Units and AbbreviaUnits and abbreviations for part 63 standtions. ards. Prohibited Activities Prohibited activities; compliance date; cirand Circumvention. cumvention, severability. Preconstruction RePreconstruction review requirements of view and Notificasection 112(i)(1). tion Requirements. Applicability .............. General provisions apply unless compliance extension; general provisions apply to area sources that become major. Compliance Dates Standards apply at effective date; 3 years for New and Reafter effective date; upon startup; 10 constructed years after construction or reconstrucsources. tion commences for CAA section 112(f). Notification ............... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. [Reserved] ............... Compliance Dates Area sources that become major must for New and Recomply with major source and standconstructed Area ards immediately upon becoming major, Sources That Beregardless of whether required to comcome Major. ply when they were an area source. Compliance Dates Comply according to date in subpart, for Existing which must be no later than 3 years Sources. after effective date; for CAA section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. [Reserved] ............... Compliance Dates Area sources that become major must for Existing Area comply with major source standards by Sources That Bedate indicated in subpart or by equivacome Major. lent time period (e.g., 3 years). [Reserved] ............... General Duty to Min- You must operate and maintain affected imize Emissions.. source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............................ Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP. You must correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ........................... Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Operation and maintenance requirements are enforceable independent of emissions limitations or other requirements in relevant standards. § 63.6(e)(2) ................................ [Reserved] ............... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Applies to subpart UUUU Brief description Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. Yes Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019, see § 63.5515 for general duty requirement. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47400 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Brief description Applies to subpart UUUU No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes. § 63.6(e)(3) ................................ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction and SSM plan; content of SSM plan. § 63.6(f)(1) ................................. SSM Exemption ....... You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. § 63.6(f)(2) and (3) .................... Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. § 63.6(g)(1) through (3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance/Finding of Compliance. Alternative Standard § 63.6(h)(1) ................................ SSM Exemption ....... § 63.6(h)(2) through (9) ............. Opacity and Visible Emission (VE) Standards. Compliance Extension. Presidential Compliance Exemption. § 63.6(i)(1) through (16) ............ § 63.6(j) ..................................... § 63.7(a)(1) and (2) ................... Performance Test Dates. § 63.7(a)(3) ................................ Section 114 Authority. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of Rescheduling. § 63.7(b)(1) ................................ § 63.7(b)(2) ................................ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subject § 63.7(c) .................................... Quality Assurance and Test Plan. § 63.7(d) .................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ................................ Testing Facilities ...... Performance Testing § 63.7(e)(2) ................................ Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Test Run Duration ... § 63.7(e)(3) ................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Procedures for getting an alternative standard. You must comply with opacity and visible emission standards at all times except during SSM. Requirements for emission limits. opacity and visible Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with subpart. Dates for conducting initial performance test; testing and other compliance demonstrations; must conduct 180 days after first subject to subpart. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA Section 114 at any time. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled test. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Requirements for testing facilities ............. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Must conduct according to this subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources utilizing flares before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes, but only for flares for which EPA Method 22 observations are required under § 63.11(b). Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No, see § 63.5535 and Table 4. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Alternative Test Method. § 63.7(g) .................................... Waiver of Tests ....... § 63.8(a)(1) ................................ Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Performance Specifications. [Reserved] ............... Monitoring with Flares. Monitoring ................ § 63.8(a)(3) ................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ................................ § 63.8(b)(1) ................................ Applies to subpart UUUU Brief description § 63.7(f) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(2) ................................ Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard. Yes. Performance specifications in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes. Unless your subpart says otherwise, the requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply. Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.8(b)(2) and (3) ................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. § 63.8(c)(1) and (c)(1)(i) ............ General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............................ Parts for Routine Repairs. Requirements to develop SSM Plan for CMS. Keep parts for routine repairs readily available. Develop a written SSM plan for CMS ....... § 63.8(c)(2) and (3) ................... Monitoring System Installation. § 63.8(c)(4) ................................ Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Requirements. Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Requirements. Must install to get representative emission of parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test. CMS must be operating except during No. Replaced with language in § 63.5560. breakdown, out-of control, repair, maintenance, and high-level calibration drifts. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ........................... § 63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii) ................ § 63.8(c)(5) ................................ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subject 47401 § 63.8(c)(6) ................................ COMS Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements § 63.8(c)(7) and (8) ................... CMS Requirements § 63.8(d) .................................... CMS Quality Control VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) must have a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period; CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. COMS minimum procedures ..................... Zero and high level calibration check requirements; out-of-control periods. Out-of-control periods, including reporting Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc.; must keep quality control plan on record for 5 years; keep old versions for 5 years after revisions; program of correction action to be included in plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).. Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes. Yes, except that § 63.8(c)(4)(i) does not apply because subpart UUUU does not require COMS. No. Subpart UUUU does not require COMS. No. Replaced with language in § 63.5545. No. Replaced with language § 63.5580(c)(6). No, except for requirements § 63.8(d)(2). E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 in in 47402 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Brief description Applies to subpart UUUU Yes, except that § 63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not apply because subpart UUUU does not require COMS. Yes, except that no site-specific test plan is required. The request to use an alternative monitoring method must be submitted with the notification of performance test or CEMS performance evaluation or 60 days prior to any initial compliance demonstration. Yes. § 63.8(e) .................................... CMS Performance Evaluation. Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports. § 63.8(f)(1) through (5) .............. Alternative Monitoring Method. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. § 63.8(f)(6) ................................. § 63.8(g)(1) through (4) ............. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction ........ § 63.8(g)(5) ................................ Data Reduction ........ § 63.9(a) .................................... Notification Requirements. Initial Notifications .... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS. COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36 evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1-hour averages computed over at least four equally spaced data points; data that cannot be used in average. Data that cannot be used in computing averages for CEMS and COMS. Applicability and State delegation ............. § 63.9(b)(1) through (5) ............. § 63.9(c) .................................... § 63.9(d) .................................... § 63.9(e) .................................... § 63.9(f) ..................................... Request for Compliance Extension. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of VE or Opacity Test. § 63.9(g) .................................... Additional Notifications When Using CMS. § 63.9(h)(1) through (6) ............. Notification of Compliance Status Report. § 63.9(i) ..................................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. § 63.9(j) ..................................... Change in Previous Information. § 63.10(a) .................................. Recordkeeping and Reporting. § 63.10(b)(1) .............................. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ........................... jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subject VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Submit notification subject 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct or reconstruct; notification of commencement of construction or reconstruction; notification of startup; contents of each. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify Administrator 60 days prior ............. Notify Administrator 30 days prior ............. Notification of performance evaluation; notification using COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy. Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity or VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change. Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of more than one source. General requirements; keep all records readily available; keep for 5 years. Records of occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown that causes source to exceed emission limitation. Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 No. Replaced § 63.5545(e). with language in No. Replaced § 63.5560(b). Yes. with language in Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, but only for flares for which EPA Method 22 observations are required as part of a flare compliance assessment. Yes, except that § 63.9(g)(2) does not apply because subpart UUUU does not require COMS. Yes. Yes, except that the notification must be submitted as part of the next semiannual compliance report, as specified in Table 8 to this subpart. Yes. Yes. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart UUUU § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .......................... Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Standard. Records of occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation or air pollution control and monitoring equipment. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ......................... Maintenance Records. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ............ Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. Records of maintenance performed on air pollution control and monitoring equipment. Records of actions taken during SSM to minimize emissions. No, see Table 9 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and (xi) .... CMS Records .......... § 63.10(b)(2)(vii) through (ix) .... Records ................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ........................ § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ....................... Records ................... Records ................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ....................... Records ................... § 63.10(b)(3) .............................. § 63.10(c)(1) through (6), (9) through (14). § 63.10(c)(7) and (8) ................. Records ................... Records ................... Records ................... § 63.10(c)(15) ............................ Use of SSM Plan ..... § 63.10(d)(1) .............................. General Reporting Requirements. Report of Performance Test Results. Requirement to report ............................... § 63.10(d)(3) .............................. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. What to report and when ........................... § 63.10(d)(4) .............................. Progress Reports ..... § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ........................... Periodic SSM Reports. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Contents and submission of periodic SSM reports. § 63.10(d)(2) .............................. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47403 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control; calibration checks, adjustments, maintenance. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emission limits; performance test, performance evaluation, and opacity/VE observation results; measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Records when under waiver ...................... Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. All documentation supporting Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status Report. Applicability determinations ....................... Additional records for CMS ....................... Records of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances for CMS. Use SSM plan to satisfy recordkeeping requirements for identification of malfunction, correction action taken, and nature of repairs to CMS. When to submit to Federal or State authority. Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes. Yes, including results of EPA Method 22 observations required as part of a flare compliance assessment. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Replaced with language in Table 9 to this subpart. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Yes. Yes, except that Table 7 to this subpart specifies the submittal date for the Notification of Compliance Status Report. Yes, but only for flares for which EPA Method 22 observations are required as part of a flare compliance assessment. Yes. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. See § 63.5580(c)(4) and Table 8 for malfunction reporting requirements. E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2 47404 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart UUUU § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .......................... Immediate SSM Reports. Contents and submission of immediate SSM reports. § 63.10(e)(1) and (2) ................. Additional CMS Reports. § 63.10(e)(3)(i) through (iii) ....... Reports .................... § 63.10(e)(3)(iv) ......................... Excess Emissions Reports. § 63.10(e)(3)(v) .......................... Excess Emissions Reports. § 63.10(e)(3)(vi) through (viii) .... Excess Emissions Report and Summary Report. § 63.10(e)(4) .............................. Reporting COMS Data. Waiver for Recordkeeping or Reporting. Control and Work Practice Requirements. State Authority and Delegations. Addresses ................ Must report results for each CEMS on a unit; written copy of performance evaluation; three copies of COMS performance evaluation. Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations). Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if there is an excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations); provision to request semiannual reporting after compliance for 1 year; submit report by 30th day following end of quarter or calendar half; if there has not been an exceedance or excess emission (now defined as deviations), report contents is a statement that there have been no deviations. Must submit report containing all of the information in § 63.10(c)(5) through (13), § 63.8(c)(7) and (8). Requirements for reporting excess emissions for CMS (now called deviations); requires all of the information in § 63.10(c)(5) through (13), § 63.8(c)(7) and (8). Must submit COMS data with performance test data. Procedures for Administrator to waive ...... No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] except that the immediate SSM report must be submitted as part of the next semiannual compliance report, as specified in Table 8 to this subpart, and No thereafter. Yes, except that § 63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not apply because subpart UUUU does not require COMS. § 63.10(f) ................................... § 63.11 ....................................... § 63.12 ....................................... § 63.13 ....................................... § 63.14 ....................................... § 63.15 ....................................... § 63.16 ....................................... Incorporations by Reference. Availability of Information and Confidentiality. Performance Track Provisions. No. Replaced with language in § 63.5580. No. Replaced with language in § 63.5580. No. Replaced with language in § 63.5580. No. Replaced with language in § 63.5580. No. Subpart UUUU does not require COMS. Yes. Requirements for flares and alternative work practice for equipment leaks. Yes. State authority to enforce standards ......... Yes. Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference .. Yes. Yes. Public and confidential information ........... Yes. Requirements for Performance member facilities. Yes. Track [FR Doc. 2019–18330 Filed 9–6–19; 8:45 am] jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Sep 06, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47346-47404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18330]



[[Page 47345]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 174

September 9, 2019

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose 
Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 47346]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415; FRL-9998-78-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU23


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Cellulose Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Cellulose Products Manufacturing to address the 
results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA 
is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is 
proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction (SSM); to add provisions regarding periodic emissions 
testing and electronic reporting; to provide more flexibility for 
monitoring requirements; and to make technical and editorial changes. 
While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, 
would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of 
the rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 24, 
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the 
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your 
comments on or before October 9, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before September 16, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0415, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0415 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (Mail Code: E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax 
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. For 
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact 
Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; and email address: 
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing 
requirements, contact Ms. Theresa Lowe, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4786; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the 
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria 
Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: 
(202) 564-7027; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0415. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the

[[Page 47347]]

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

%R percent recovery
ADI Applicability Determination Index
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system
CEP Cellulose Ethers Production
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMC carboxymethyl cellulose
COS carbonyl sulfide
CS2 carbon disulfide
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
GACT generally available control technology
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEC hydroxyethyl cellulose
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model-3
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HPC hydroxypropyl cellulose
HPMC hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
ID identifier
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometers
km\2\ square kilometers
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MC methyl cellulose
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MVP Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control 
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Limits Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC source classification code
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS United States Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making under CAA 
section 112(f)(2)?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

[[Page 47348]]

    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. This proposed action will not 
affect federal, state, local, and tribal government entities. The 
Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and 
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final 
Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992) included separate source 
categories for the various cellulose products manufacturing industries. 
The source categories on the initial list were Cellulose Food Casings, 
Rayon, Cellophane, Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and 
Cellulose Ethers Production. The Cellulose Ethers Production source 
category on the initial list included the hydroxyethyl cellulose, 
hydroxypropyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose industries. 
In developing the original proposed rule for Cellulose Products 
Manufacturing, we identified another cellulose products manufacturing 
industry, Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing, that was not on the initial 
source category list. We added Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing to the 
source category list on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63026) in accordance 
with section 112(c) of the CAA. When the EPA proposed the Cellulose 
Products Manufacturing NESHAP on August 28, 2000 (65 FR 52166), the 
Cellulose Food Casings, Rayon, Cellophane, and Cellulosic Sponge 
Manufacturing source categories were combined to create a new source 
category called ``Miscellaneous Viscose Processes.'' At the same time, 
we combined the Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and 
Cellulose Ethers Production source categories to create a newly 
expanded ``Cellulose Ethers Production'' source category. On February 
12, 2002 (67 FR 6521), we published an updated source category list 
that included the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes (MVP) and Cellulose 
Ethers Production (CEP) source categories.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category               NESHAP           NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Viscose           Cellulose          325211, 325220,
 Processes.                      Products           326121, 326199.
                                 Manufacturing.
Cellulose Ethers Production...  Cellulose          325199.
                                 Products
                                 Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will 
post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical 
documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program 
is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first 
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second 
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP 
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual 
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also 
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 
years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, 
or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into 
the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology 
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, 
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The 
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections 
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement 
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears 
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA

[[Page 47349]]

promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for 
categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards 
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission 
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA 
discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions 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). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being 
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After 
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a 
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    The MVP source category includes any facility engaged in the 
production of cellulose food casings, rayon, cellophane, or cellulosic 
sponges, which includes the following process steps: Production of 
alkali cellulose from cellulose and sodium hydroxide (NaOH); production 
of sodium cellulose xanthate from alkali cellulose and carbon disulfide 
(CS2) (xanthation); production of viscose from sodium 
cellulose xanthate and NaOH solution; regeneration of liquid viscose 
into solid cellulose; \2\ and washing of the solid cellulose product 
(see 65 FR 52171-2, August 28, 2000). It should be noted that, while 
the current Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP includes standards 
for rayon manufacturing, all rayon plants in the United States have 
shut down since promulgation of the original rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MVP operations use different methods and equipment to 
complete the regeneration step. Cellulose food casing operations 
extrude viscose through a die, forming a tube, while rayon 
operations extrude viscose through spinnerets, forming thin strands. 
Cellophane operations extrude viscose through a long slit, forming a 
flat sheet, while cellulosic sponge operations feed a mixture of 
viscose and Glauber's salt into a sponge mold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CEP source category includes any facility engaged in the 
production of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose 
(HEC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), methyl cellulose (MC), or 
hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), which includes the following 
process steps: Production of alkali cellulose from cellulose and NaOH; 
reaction of the alkali cellulose with one or more organic chemicals to 
produce a cellulose ether product; \3\ washing and purification of the 
cellulose ether product; and drying of the cellulose ether product (see 
65 FR 52171, August 28, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To produce CMC, HEC, HPC, MC, and HPMC, alkali cellulose is 
reacted with chloroacetic acid, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, 
methyl chloride, and a combination of methyl chloride and propylene 
oxide, respectively.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47350]]

    This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a 
technology review of the emission sources subject to the Cellulose 
Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The NESHAP requires MVP operations to 
reduce the total sulfide emissions from their process vents and control 
the CS2 emissions from their CS2 unloading and 
storage operations. It also requires cellophane operations to reduce 
the toluene emissions from their solvent coating operations and toluene 
storage vessels. The NESHAP requires CEP operations to control the HAP 
emissions from their process vents, wastewater, equipment leaks, and 
liquid streams in open systems. The NESHAP requires both MVP and CEP 
operations to comply with work practice standards for closed-vent 
systems and heat exchanger systems. The NESHAP also includes various 
operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the MVP and CEP source 
categories.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    On June 8, 2018, the EPA sent out a survey to the cellulose 
products manufacturing industry to gather information needed to conduct 
the regulatory reviews required under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 
112(f)(2). The EPA divided the survey into two parts. Part 1 requested 
updated inventory data for emission sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UUUU, to support the residual risk assessment for the two 
source categories for purposes of detailed residual risk modeling. Part 
2 requested available information on process equipment, control 
devices, and other pertinent information to support the 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UUUU, technology review. The response rate for the survey was 
100 percent. For more details on the data collection conducted to 
prepare inputs for the residual risk assessment, see the memorandum 
titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart 
UUUU, in the docket for this rulemaking. For more details on the data 
collection conducted for the technology review, see the memorandum 
titled Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing 
Source Category--Proposed Rule, also available in the docket.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    In addition to survey data provided by the regulated facilities, 
the EPA reviewed a number of other information sources to determine if 
there have been developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies by cellulose products manufacturing facilities to support 
the technology review. These information sources include:
     Emissions data (e.g., stack test reports and continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data) submitted with survey 
responses;
     Facility operating permits submitted with survey responses 
and collected from state agencies;
     Semiannual compliance reports submitted with survey 
responses;
     Other documentation submitted with survey responses (e.g., 
compliance calculations; process flow diagrams; Safety Data Sheets; 
information on monitoring, wastewater, and equipment leaks);
     Information on air pollution control options utilized by 
the industry from the EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology/
Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Limits 
Clearinghouse (RBLC);
     Information on applicability and compliance issues from 
the EPA's Applicability Determination Index (ADI); and
     Literature review of recent information on MVP and CEP 
practices, processes, and control technologies.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making under CAA section 
112(f)(2)?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\4\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI 
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ 
system.

``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of 
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, 
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the 
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional 
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and 
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''

    See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is 
only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an

[[Page 47351]]

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include 
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and 
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be 
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. 
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA 
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight 
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin 
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. 
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along 
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 
category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated 
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, 
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source categories under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the categories.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel 
are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission 
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR 
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than 
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or 
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the 
assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In 
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of 
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections 
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data 
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.A of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer

[[Page 47352]]

health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the 
potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also 
provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that 
follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted 
the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the 
following documents which provide more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to 
assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are 
consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by 
a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \6\ and described in the SAB review 
report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, we used data from 
Part 1 of the 2018 survey as the basis for the risk assessment for the 
MVP and CEP source categories. Part 1 of the survey, which concluded in 
August/September 2018, targeted facilities that are major sources of 
HAP emissions and involved an update of pre-populated National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data spreadsheets (or creation of new 
datasets). The NEI is a database that contains information about 
sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. 
The NEI database includes estimates of actual annual air pollutant 
emissions from point and volume sources; emission release 
characteristic data such as emission release height, temperature, 
diameter, velocity, and flow rate; and locational latitude/longitude 
coordinates. We asked facilities subject to the Cellulose Products 
Manufacturing NESHAP to refine (or create new) inventories based on 
their NEI datasets for purposes of detailed residual risk modeling. 
Refinements included providing additional details for HAP emission 
sources, providing more specific information on the location and 
characteristics of emission points (e.g., updating emission release 
coordinates and parameters), and adding or updating HAP emissions data 
for each emission release point. We compiled the updated datasets for 
each individual facility into MVP and CEP emissions databases to create 
the MACT source category residual risk modeling files.
    The actual annual emissions data in the emissions databases include 
data from source tests, CEMS, material balances, emission factors, 
emission models, and engineering judgment provided by sources surveyed 
in Part 1 of the survey. We received a comprehensive set of emissions 
estimates that enabled us to conduct risk modeling of HAP emissions for 
all major source facilities in the MVP and CEP source categories.
    We conducted substantial quality assurance (QA) efforts on the Part 
1 data in order to create the modeling files needed for the 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UUUU, residual risk assessment.\7\ We first reviewed the 
Part 1 databases to remove non-applicable data (e.g., data marked for 
deletion by survey respondents) unless we considered them to be source-
category data, emission units identified as not subject to the 
Cellulose Products Manufacturing NESHAP, emission units identified as 
shut down, records with non-HAP data, and records with zero emissions. 
No duplicate emissions data were discovered during the QA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These QA efforts are discussed in an April 15, 2019 
memorandum in the docket titled Preparation of the Residual Risk 
Modeling Input File for Subpart UUUU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reviewed the databases to ensure that each record contained a 
facility identifier (ID), emission unit ID, and process ID. If an ID 
was missing, one was assigned using information provided by industry 
(e.g., from EPA databases, from emission unit description or process 
description in the NEI). In some cases, emission unit IDs and process 
IDs were revised for consistency. Looking across the updated MVP and 
CEP inventories, we also reviewed whether there may be any referential 
integrity issues associated with these IDs (e.g., having the same 
emission unit ID associated with multiple emission unit descriptions or 
having the same process ID associated with multiple process 
descriptions or multiple source classification codes (SCCs)). In those 
cases, we revised the appropriate ID to address the issue.
    In addition, each record was checked to ensure it was labeled with 
a regulatory code, SCC, and emission process group. No regulatory codes 
or SCCs were found missing. The SCCs for some records were revised for 
consistency. Where information on emission process group was missing, 
the emission process group was determined based on information from 
SCCs, comments from survey respondents, etc. Next, the SCCs and 
emission process groups were compared and reviewed for consistency with 
each other; no issues were found.
    We reviewed the pollutant codes in the source category risk 
modeling files to ensure the codes and descriptions matched the latest 
code lookup table used by the EPA for risk modeling files; the review 
found the records to be consistent.
    We speciated data for chromium and mercury using default speciation 
criteria for those pollutants for the specific SCC. We speciated 
chromium emissions as hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) and trivalent 
chromium (chromium III). We speciated mercury emissions as particulate 
divalent mercury, gaseous divalent mercury, and gaseous elemental 
mercury. We were unable to speciate data for glycol ether for one 
facility because no information on the glycol ether compound(s) emitted 
was available from the facility in their Part 1 survey response or 
operating permit. For unspeciated emission inventories, it is the EPA's 
risk assessment policy to use the most potent noncancer health 
benchmark as the default emission compound; in this case, ethylene 
glycol methyl ether would be modeled.
    We reviewed the emissions data by calculating the percent of 
facilities reporting each HAP, comparing emissions of a facility to 
category average emissions, calculating standard deviations, and 
identifying outliers. No pollutants in the MVP and CEP modeling files 
were found above or below the range for either category.
    We reviewed the MVP and CEP risk modeling files to ensure that each 
record in these files contained an emission release point ID. If an ID 
was missing, one was assigned using information provided by industry 
(e.g., from the emission unit ID or process ID). In some cases, 
emission release point IDs were revised for consistency. Looking across 
the updated MVP and CEP inventories, we also determined whether there 
may be any referential integrity issues associated with the emission 
release information. For each emission release point, each record

[[Page 47353]]

should have one set of coordinates (latitude and longitude) and one set 
of stack or fugitive parameters. All records were reviewed for 
consistency with respect to the emission release point. Where any such 
issues were identified, we revised the emission release point ID, 
stack/fugitive parameters, and/or coordinates to address the issue.
    We reviewed emission points labeled as stacks to ensure no fugitive 
parameters were identified; any fugitive parameter values (usually 
zeroes) entered for these records were deleted. We reviewed stack 
parameters to ensure all were populated with reasonable values and made 
changes where necessary. We checked stack height data to ensure that 
they were greater than stack diameter. We checked exit gas flow rate 
data to determine whether they met the EPA's criteria that the flow 
rate must be within 10 percent of the calculated value (assuming a 
cylindrical stack). Where exit gas flow rate values did not meet the 
10-percent criteria, we conducted a review to determine the source of 
the discrepancy (e.g., the reported stack parameter was in the wrong 
units). We also checked for missing stack parameters and populated the 
missing data using values from other records for the same emission 
release point; if values from other records were not available, we 
calculated the missing value based on other related parameters for the 
same emission release point (e.g., calculated exit gas velocity using 
available data for stack diameter and exit gas flow rate).
    We checked fugitive parameters to ensure there was an associated 
length, width, and angle, and that no stack parameters for fugitive 
sources were erroneously populated, other than the required national 
defaults.
    We checked coordinate values (latitude and longitude) to determine 
if there were any missing values and to ensure only one set of 
coordinates appeared for each emission release point. We populated the 
missing data using values from other records for the same emission 
release point, where possible. We revised coordinate values where 
necessary to ensure coordinates were consistent for the same emission 
point. We also checked coordinate values to ensure that all coordinates 
were on the facility property, by analyzing the distance between 
coordinates at individual facilities. Only one emission point, a 
wastewater treatment system emission unit, was found to be an outlier, 
and the coordinates of this emission point were checked and were found 
to lie on wastewater tanks near the boundary of the property.
    We checked the source category risk modeling files for missing 
control measure information and filled gaps using control measure 
comments provided by respondents in their Part 1 survey responses or 
process diagrams provided by respondents in their Part 2 survey 
responses.
    The emissions inventory for MVP sources identifies no emissions of 
PB-HAP. The emissions inventory for CEP sources identifies emissions of 
the following PB-HAP: Cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead 
compounds, and mercury compounds. Risk-based screening levels are 
available for Tier 1 screening for all of the above PB-HAP except lead 
compounds, which are compared to the level of the current National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.
    Consistent with the EPA's standard practice in conducting risk 
assessments for source categories, we conducted a two-step process to 
determine: (1) Whether PB-HAP are being emitted; and (2) whether they 
are being released above screening levels. If these releases are 
significantly above the screening levels and the EPA has detailed 
information on the releases and the site, a complete multipathway 
analysis of the site is conducted to estimate pathway risks for the 
source category.
    We considered actual emissions of the ecological HAP emitted from 
the CEP source category in the ecological HAP analysis. In addition to 
the PB-HAP emitted from the CEP source category, we considered 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) for ecological HAP 
modeling. The CEP source category, however, does not emit HF. Further 
information about the multipathway analysis performed for this category 
follows in section IV.A.2.c of this preamble.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    Actual emissions are sometimes less than allowable emissions due to 
a compliance margin, a more stringent state or local rule, or over-
control due to the use of control technologies, equipment, or work 
practices that are significantly better than that required to meet 40 
CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, emission limits. Consequently, as part of 
the Part 1 survey instructions, the EPA requested that facilities 
provide MACT-allowable emissions estimates.
    Allowable emissions estimates were available for four of the five 
MVP facilities. Two MVP facilities provided their allowable emissions 
in their Part 1 survey spreadsheet. Two other MVP facilities provided 
their allowable emissions separately, in their Part 1 survey response 
letter. The latter two facilities stated that the stack parameters 
would be expected to be different if they were to emit at the allowable 
emissions levels because additional ductwork and ductwork modifications 
would be expected in order to route additional fumes to their 
biofilters if they increased capacity. While we do not intend MACT-
allowable emissions in this risk modeling effort to represent the 
maximum potential-to-emit emission rate, we conservatively used this 
information for modeling because it was the only readily available 
information. We created new records in the MVP risk modeling file to 
include just these allowable emissions data and their associated stack 
parameters. To avoid any referential integrity issues, we assigned a 
different emission release point ID to these allowable emissions 
records.
    The remaining MVP facility did not provide allowable emissions data 
in their survey spreadsheet. However, this facility is the only one in 
its subcategory, so the original MACT for the subcategory was based on 
their level of control. Consequently, we assumed that allowable 
emissions were equal to the reported actual emissions. So, for this 
facility, the allowable multiplier is 1.
    There were some gaps in the allowable emissions estimates provided 
by the MVP facilities. Allowable emissions for carbonyl sulfide (COS) 
were not available for one MVP facility

[[Page 47354]]

for one of their processes because they report it as part of the 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) limit in their title V permit. We 
created a new record in the MVP risk modeling file that calculated the 
COS allowable emissions for this process using the same multiplier as 
H2S (6.8). Allowable emissions for CS2 were also 
not available for a second MVP facility for some of their processes. We 
calculated the allowable emissions for this facility using the median 
of the multipliers for those processes at the facility that had 
allowable emissions estimates. Using this approach, we estimated the 
median allowable multiplier for CS2 for this facility to be 
approximately 2.4.
    Allowable emissions estimates were available for 48 percent of the 
records in the CEP risk modeling file, and the remaining 52 percent of 
records had no allowable emissions estimates. Of that 52 percent of 
records, 33 percent were uncontrolled sources of organic HAP, and 19 
percent were controlled sources of organic HAP.
    For uncontrolled CEP sources without allowable emissions data 
(e.g., fugitive emissions), we assumed that allowable emissions were 
equal to their reported actual emissions, since there is no additional 
control beyond current emissions. For controlled CEP sources without 
allowable emissions data, we reviewed Part 2 survey data on emission 
controls for these sources and found that all of these sources were 
already meeting the 99-percent control required under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UUUU, and based on the data reported, there is little if any 
additional control beyond current emissions. Consequently, allowable 
emissions are equal to actuals for controlled CEP sources.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\8\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\9\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \10\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \10\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of 
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk 
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response 
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In 
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 
developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have 
undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may 
use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other 
values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values 
used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we 
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \11\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest 
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census 
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual

[[Page 47355]]

cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at 
each census block by the number of people residing in that block, 
summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this 
result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts 
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP 
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and 
the environment,\12\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological 
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our 
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion 
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the 
supporting rationale are described in more detail in the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule and in Appendix 5 of both reports: Technical Support Document for 
Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in 
RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support 
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft 
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission 
point,\13\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th 
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, 
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is 
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and in 
Appendix 5 of the reports: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk 
Screening Assessment, both are available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response 
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, 
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \14\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs repr esent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\15\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\ 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain

[[Page 47356]]

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the 
airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams 
per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the 
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or 
an impaired ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \15\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \16\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    As part of the Part 1 survey instructions, the EPA requested that 
facilities provide acute emissions estimates. For the MVP source 
category, acute emissions estimates were available for four of the five 
facilities. One of the four facilities was missing an acute emission 
estimate for COS for one process, but we were able to calculate an 
estimate for COS by applying the same acute multiplier for 
CS2 for the same process at this facility. We developed 
separate acute multipliers for MVP process operations and MVP storage 
tanks to estimate acute emissions for the fifth facility. We estimated 
the average acute multipliers for MVP process operations and MVP 
storage tanks to be approximately 1.9 and 1.1, respectively.
    For the CEP source category, acute emissions estimates were 
available for 38 percent of the records in the CEP risk modeling file. 
The remaining 62 percent of records had no acute emissions estimates. 
For CEP sources without acute emissions data, we reviewed permits and 
extracted maximum hourly rate data if available, and assumed the acute 
multiplier would be 10 if no data were available.
    A further discussion of why these factors were chosen can be found 
in the memorandum, Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File 
for Subpart UUUU, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or 
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. This 
was the case for the CEP source category. In cases where an acute HQ 
from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the site-specific 
data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site location. This was 
required for the MVP source category, in which the data refinements 
employed consisted of ensuring that the locations where the maximum HQ 
occurred were off facility property and where the public could 
potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule which is available in the docket for this source 
category.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the 
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at 
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any 
PB-HAP or lead compounds. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions, 
no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this 
source category.
    For the CEP source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of 
cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead compounds, and mercury 
compounds, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except 
for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP 
consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, 
we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions 
of PB-HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk 
through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate 
emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission 
rates for several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end 
screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the 
EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological 
Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold 
emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated 
dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic 
matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and 
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative 
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See 
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we 
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the 
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the 
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. 
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening 
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess 
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, 
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that 
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury 
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP 
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening 
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any 
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a 
second

[[Page 47357]]

screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. 
The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher 
and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener 
scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer 
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the 
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from 
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between 
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the 
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed 
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each 
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations 
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local 
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
    In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the 
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer 
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the 
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by 
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, 
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. 
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion 
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end 
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish 
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption of fish \17\) 
and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of 
locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 
\18\). If PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening 
value greater than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks 
below a level of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility 
exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a 
Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \18\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating 
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on 
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\19\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the 
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to 
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting 
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, 
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk 
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information on the multipathway assessment for CEP, see 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid 
gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and HF.
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect 
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a 
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available 
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist 
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the

[[Page 47358]]

Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the MVP and CEP source categories 
emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the CEP source category, we 
identified emissions of cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, lead 
compounds, mercury compounds, and HCl. Because one or more of the 
environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the 
source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. For 
the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any of the 
eight environmental HAP included in the screen. Because we did not 
identify environmental HAP emissions from the MVP source category, no 
further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted for that 
category.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that 
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant 
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the 
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to 
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each 
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do 
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility 
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated 
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility 
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 
facility further in Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the 
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: 
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and square kilometers 
(km\2\); the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that 
exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-
weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by 
dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km 
modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For 
further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, 
see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers 
Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 
2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. 
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records 
of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described 
in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were 
conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source 
category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining 
records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then 
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted 
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each 
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category 
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the 
modeled

[[Page 47359]]

source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to 
determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be 
attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also 
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest 
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk 
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule and the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the 
methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all 
facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution 
to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the Risk 
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule and the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which are 
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full 
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be 
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health 
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets
    Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. Some of the emission estimates considered 
in this analysis are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an 
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly 
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations 
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\20\ 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as

[[Page 47360]]

low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be 
greater.\21\ Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values 
represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-
protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to 
be ``without appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an 
uncertainty factor (UF) approach,\22\ which considers uncertainty, 
variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to 
derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \21\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \22\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health 
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources 
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by the CEP source category 
are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants 
cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could 
result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to 
alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity 
with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that 
value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value 
is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable 
risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS 
assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally 
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and 
hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been 
performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP 
not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively 
and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk 
management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions 
achieved by various control options. For the MVP source category, we 
have identified appropriate human health effect dose-response values 
for all pollutants.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR 
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and 
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) 
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is 
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it 
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum 
exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case 
air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels 
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined 
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or 
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening 
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant 
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM, 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are 
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important 
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR 
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on 
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the 
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.

[[Page 47361]]

    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we 
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This 
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally 
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the 
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of 
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface 
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We 
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human 
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological 
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end 
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the 
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. 
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that 
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for 
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also 
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the 
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These 
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations 
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those 
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding 
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three 
tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful 
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP 
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been 
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, 
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models 
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may 
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may 
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and 
resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

1. MVP Source Category
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the 
inhalation risk results of the MVP source category. The results of the 
chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based 
on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed 
by the source category was estimated to be less than 1-in-1 million. 
The risk driver is acetaldehyde emissions from viscose process 
equipment. The total estimated cancer incidence from MVP emission 
sources based on actual and allowable emission levels is 0.000006 
excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 167,000 years. 
Emissions of acetaldehyde contributed 100 percent to this cancer 
incidence. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, no people were 
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
    The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the MVP source 
category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be 
less than 1. Based upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory 
risks were driven by CS2 emissions from viscose process 
equipment.

                                                   Table 2--MVP Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Estimated
                                                                           Maximum     population  at                         Maximum         Maximum
                                                          Number of      individual       increased    Estimated  annual      chronic      refined acute
                   Risk assessment                       facilities      cancer risk       risk of     cancer  incidence     noncancer     noncancer HQ
                                                                       (in 1 million)    cancer >=1-    (cases per year)     TOSHI \3\          \4\
                                                                             \2\        in-1 million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................................               5              <1               0           0.000006            0.05             0.4
Facility-Wide........................................               5               1               0            0.00006            0.05  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47362]]

 
                                                              Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................................               5              <1               0           0.000006            0.05  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual, allowable, and facility-wide emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category and facility-wide.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MVP source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value. The HQ of 0.4 is based upon an acute ERPG-1.

b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there 
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum 
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ value for the MVP source category 
was less than 1 from CS2 emissions (based on the acute (1-
hour) ERPG-1 for CS2). It is also important to note that the 
highest HQ is based on hourly emissions multiplier for each emission 
process group ranging from 1 to 37 times the annual emissions rate. 
Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
    c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    The five facilities modeled in the MVP source category did not 
report any emissions of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic, 
dioxin/furans, and POM compounds) or any noncarcinogenic PB-HAP 
(cadmium and mercury). Since, there are no PB-HAP or lead compounds 
identified in the emissions inventory for this source category, no 
further assessment of multipathway risk was conducted.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The five facilities modeled in the MVP source category did not 
report any emissions of lead compounds, PB-HAP, or any acid gases (HCl 
or HF). Since there are no ecological HAP identified in the emissions 
inventory for this source category, no further assessment of ecological 
risk was conducted.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that 
none of the five facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk 
greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 2). The maximum facility-
wide cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, driven by formaldehyde, cadmium 
compounds, and nickel compounds from a non-category fugitive area 
source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 
0.00006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 16,700 
years, with zero people estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-
in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is 
estimated to be less than 1, driven by source category emissions of 
CS2 from viscose process equipment.

2. CEP Source Category

a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the 
inhalation risk results of the CEP source category. The results of the 
chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based 
on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed 
by the source category was estimated to be 80-in-1 million. The risk 
driver is from emissions of ethylene oxide from cellulose ether process 
equipment used to produce hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC). The total 
estimated cancer incidence from CEP emission sources based on actual 
and allowable emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or 
one case in every 100 years. Emissions of ethylene oxide contributed 99 
percent to this cancer incidence based upon actual emissions. Based 
upon actual or allowable emissions, 105,000 people were exposed to 
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum 
chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on 
actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than 1. Based 
upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by 
chlorine emissions from cellulose ether process equipment.

                                                   Table 3--CEP Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Estimated
                                                                              Maximum     population  at     Estimated        Maximum         Maximum
                                                             Number of      individual       increased     annual cancer      chronic        screening
                     Risk assessment                        facilities      cancer risk       risk of        incidence       noncancer         acute
                                                                          (in 1 million)  cancer  >=1-in-   (cases per       TOSHI \3\     noncancer HQ
                                                                                             1 million         year)                            \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................................               3              80         105,000            0.01            0.06             0.1
Facility-Wide...........................................               3         \2\ 500         570,000            0.04           \5\ 4  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47363]]

 
                                                              Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................................               3              80         112,000            0.01             0.2  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual, allowable, and whole facility emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to ethylene oxide emissions from outside of the source category identified as releases from
  holding ponds, storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the CEP source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value.
\5\ Maximum TOSHI from whole facility are from chlorine emissions from non-category sources (classified as other). The target organ with the highest
  TOSHI is the respiratory system.

b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there 
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum 
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ value for the source category was 
less than 1 from methanol emissions from cellulose ether process 
equipment (based on the acute (1-hour) REL for methanol). It is also 
important to note that the highest HQ is based on an hourly emissions 
multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs are not 
calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    One facility within the CEP source category reported emissions of 
multipathway pollutants of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB-HAP 
(arsenic), and noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury). Results of 
the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB-HAP emissions 
(based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from the facility 
exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic 
compounds) by a factor of 2 and for the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium 
and mercury) was equal to the Tier 1 screening value of 1. Based on 
this Tier 1 screening assessment for carcinogens, the arsenic, cadmium, 
and mercury emission rates for the single facility were below our level 
of concern. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from 
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to 
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest annual 
average lead concentration of 0.00001 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below the 
NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of 
concern due to lead.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an 
environmental risk screening assessment for the CEP source category. 
The three facilities modeled in the source category reported emissions 
of lead compounds and the above PB-HAP, as well as an acid gas (HCl). 
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP, we did not find any 
exceedances of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did 
not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the 
average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the average 
concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did 
not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual 
modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the 
modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all 
facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening 
analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result 
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that 
all three facilities modeled have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk 
greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 3). The maximum facility-
wide cancer risk is 500-in-1 million, mainly driven by ethylene oxide 
from sources outside the source category, including holding ponds, 
storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases. The 
next highest cancer risk was 80-in-1 million, based on whole facility 
emissions of ethylene oxide. The total estimated cancer incidence from 
the whole facility is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in 
every 25 years, with 570,000 people estimated to have cancer risks 
greater than 1-in-1 million and 2,000 people with risks greater than 
100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is 
estimated to be equal to 4, driven by emissions of chlorine from non-
category sources.
3. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the MVP and CEP source categories, we 
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and 
within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MVP and 
CEP source categories across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities.
    For the MVP source category demographic analysis, the results for 
various demographic groups are based on the estimated risk from actual 
emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the 
facilities. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to 
emissions from MVP facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI 
greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the MVP demographic 
analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities, available in the docket for 
this action.
    The results of the CEP demographic analysis are summarized in Table 
4 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on 
the

[[Page 47364]]

estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the CEP facilities.

                                 Table 4--CEP Demographic Risk Analysis Results
                  [CEP Source Category Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                    with cancer     Population
                                                                                   risk greater     with hazard
                                                                                   than or equal   index greater
                                                                                     to 1-in-1        than 1
                                                                                      million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Nationwide          Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049         104,572               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              51               0
Minority........................................................              38              49               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12              37               0
Native American.................................................             0.8             0.3               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              18               7               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               4               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              12               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              88               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              14              16               0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              86              84               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6               1               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the CEP source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
104,572 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and 
approximately zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. 
The percentages of the at-risk population in three demographic groups 
(African American, above poverty level, and over 25 without highs 
school diploma) are greater than their respective nationwide 
percentages. The methodology and the results of the CEP demographic 
analysis are presented in the technical report, Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, available in the docket for 
this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
    In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and 
allowable emissions from the MVP and CEP source categories. In 
determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all 
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as 
described above. The results for the MVP and CEP source categories 
indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to 
the individual most exposed are below the presumptive limit of 
acceptability of 100-in-1 million.
    The results for the MVP source category indicate that both the 
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed are less than 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit 
of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The MVP source category also has 
chronic noncancer inhalation exposures to HAP with health benchmarks 
with TOSHI values less than 1 (0.05), 20 times below an exposure that 
the EPA has determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health 
effects. Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health 
effects also are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures 
resulting in an HQ greater than 1 (0.4) based upon the 1-hour REL.
    The results for the CEP source category indicate that both the 
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed are less or equal to 80-in-1 million, below the presumptive 
limit of acceptability of

[[Page 47365]]

100-in-1 million. EPA estimates emissions from the 3 facilities in the 
source category would result in a cancer incidence of 0.01 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one case every 100 years based upon actual 
emissions from the source category. This incidence rate is solely from 
1 facility emitting ethylene oxide. We estimate 105,000 individuals are 
exposed to an inhalation cancer risk equal to or greater than 1-in-1 
million from this one facility. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated 
with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.06 based 
on actual emissions, 16 times below an exposure that the EPA has 
determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. 
Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also 
are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in 
an HQ greater than 1 (0.1) based upon the 1-hour REL.
    Multipathway screen values for the CEP source category are below a 
level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PB-HAP as 
well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risk 
due to ingestion exposures estimated using Tier 1 health-protective 
risk screening assumptions are below 2-in-1 million for cancer and 
equal to 1 based upon Tier 1 noncancer screen values for mercury.
    Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the 
risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for 
the CEP and MVP source categories are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    The inhalation cancer risk from the MVP source category is less 
than 1-in-1 million and the chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation 
exposures is less than 1. Additionally, the results of the MVP acute 
screening analysis showed that risks were below a level of concern. 
Because we are proposing that risks from the MVP source category are 
acceptable and below the thresholds of concern, we are proposing that 
the current MACT standards applicable to the MVP source category 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the three modeled 
facilities within the CEP source category are acceptable, the MIR for 
actual and allowable emissions are 80-in-1 million caused by ethylene 
oxide emissions from the HEC process. We considered whether the MACT 
standards applicable to these emission points in particular, as well as 
all the current MACT standards applicable to this source category, 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As directed 
by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the 
current emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated 
the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other 
measures (including those considered under the technology review) that 
could be applied to the CEP source category to further reduce the risks 
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk 
assessment.
    The HEC production process utilizes purified wood pulp or cotton 
linters to produce alkali cellulose by adding a caustic solution. The 
alkali cellulose is then reacted with ethylene oxide to produce HEC, 
which is a thickening agent used in cosmetics, cleaning solutions, and 
other household products. This process utilizes extended cook-out 
procedures to reduce the amount of ethylene oxide not consumed during 
the HEC reaction in conjunction with an add-on control device. This 
process is subject to standard 3 in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 
63--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards, which requires a 99-
percent reduction in HAP emissions.
    As discussed in section IV.C below and in the memo titled 
Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--
Proposed Rule in the docket for this rulemaking, we did not identify 
any developments in processes, practices, or controls for the CEP 
source category during our analysis for this proposal. CEP facilities 
use scrubbers to control emissions of ethylene oxide, as well as other 
HAP, and these devices are capable of achieving high levels of emission 
reductions. We did not identify additional technologies capable of 
further reducing emissions, or improvements to existing technologies 
that would result in further reduction of emissions. Given that we did 
not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies and the acceptable risks remaining after implementation of 
the NESHAP, we are proposing that the existing standards for the CEP 
source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, and revision of the standards is not required.
    Lastly, regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide 
(described above), which are due primarily to emission sources that are 
not part of the CEP source category, we intend to evaluate these 
facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address 
them in a separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the 
EPA is addressing ethylene oxide in response to the results of the 
latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, 
which identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas 
across the country. (NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics 
screening tool, designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal 
air agencies identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for 
further examination.) The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide 
significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some 
census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number 
of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk 
value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA will work with industry 
and state, local, and tribal air agencies as the EPA takes a two-
pronged approach to address ethylene oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing 
and, as appropriate, revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit 
ethylene oxide--starting with air toxics emissions standards for 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities and commercial 
sterilizers; and (2) conducting site-specific risk assessments and, as 
necessary, implementing emission control strategies for targeted high-
risk facilities. The EPA will post updates on its work to address 
ethylene oxide on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any 
environmental HAP. Because we did not identify any environmental HAP 
emissions, we expect no adverse environmental effects and are proposing 
that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
    For the CEP source category, our analyses showed no exceedances of 
ecological benchmarks and, therefore, we do not expect there to be an 
adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this 
source category. We are proposing that it is not necessary to set a 
more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for control of HAP emissions from CEP and MVP 
facilities.

[[Page 47366]]

In conducting the technology review, we reviewed sources of information 
on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not 
considered during the development of the Cellulose Products 
Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as looked for information on improvements 
in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred 
since the development of the NESHAP. The review included reviewing the 
industry responses to Part 2 of the sector survey, a search of the RBLC 
database and the EPA's ADI, reviews of air permits, and a review of 
relevant literature. After reviewing the information from the 
aforementioned sources, we did not identify any developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce HAP emissions 
from the CEP and MVP source categories. Therefore, we are proposing 
that revisions to the NESHAP are not necessary based on our review 
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    While these searches did not result in a finding of any new 
technologies, the results of the ADI search suggest that the EPA could 
add biofilter effluent conductivity operating limits and parameter 
monitoring as an alternative to biofilter pH operating limits and 
monitoring. This is discussed in section IV.D below. Additional details 
of our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled 
Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We also are proposing various other changes, including electronic 
submittal of notifications, compliance reports, and performance test 
reports; addition of periodic emissions testing requirements and 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of three test methods (listed in 
section IV.D.5 below); and various technical and editorial changes. Our 
analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed 
below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule 
which appears at 40 CFR 63.5515 and Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63 
(Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU). Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply 
at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the 
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail 
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of 
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM 
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption 
as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods. 
However, the EPA is proposing alternative operating limits for periods 
of startup and shutdown for thermal oxidizers and scrubbers to address 
issues with parameter monitoring during these periods.
    As discussed in the memorandum titled Summary of the Startup and 
Shutdown Data for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, we requested data 
regarding periods of startup and shutdown as part of the 2018 survey. 
Facilities did not indicate difficulty meeting the emission standards 
as a result of startup or shutdown events. However, facilities did 
indicate difficulty meeting thermal oxidizer and scrubber operating 
parameters during these periods. This is not unexpected because these 
periods reflect non-steady state operations and production. For sources 
equipped with thermal oxidizers, survey responses indicated that they 
could not meet the setpoint temperature during periods of startup. This 
is likely due to a temperature drop when the HAP-laden air stream is 
initially added to the oxidizer. Survey responses indicated that, for 
sources equipped with scrubbers (wet, water, and caustic), pressure 
drop, liquid-to-gas ratios, and scrubber liquid flow rate parameter 
limits could not be met during startup and shutdown. This is not 
unexpected since pluggage can occur during non-stable conditions, 
limiting the liquid flow rate and subsequently reducing the pressure 
drop across the scrubber due to the lack of liquid flow. Consequently, 
the EPA is proposing the following alternative operating parameter 
options to demonstrate continuous compliance and ensure proper control 
device operations during periods of startup and shutdown:
     Wet or caustic scrubber: As an alternative to pressure 
drop, liquid flow rate, or liquid-to-gas ratio, confirm that the 
scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and 
continue operation until emission unit shutdown is complete. 
Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on 
equipment design, manufacturer's recommendations, or other site-
specific operating values established for normal operating periods. Do 
not include these parameters when determining the daily average.
     Thermal oxidizer: As an alternative to the minimum firebox 
temperature, confirm that the oxidizer is operating properly prior to 
emission unit startup (e.g., firebox temperature has reached the 
setpoint temperature established in the most recent stack test). Do not 
include these parameters when determining the daily average.
    The survey responses for other control devices did not indicate any 
issues meeting operating parameters during periods of startup and 
shutdown. One additional survey response requested the addition of a 
shutdown work practice for process lines and equipment venting. This 
response suggested that, in the event of a shutdown, it would be 
appropriate to purge the process gas and/or liquid to an emission 
control device, recovery device, or return to the process. 
Additionally, the response suggested that gas streams may be emitted if 
they contain less than 50 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or 
the lower explosive limit is less than 10 percent. The Agency is 
requesting comment to determine if this

[[Page 47367]]

would be an appropriate work practice. Emissions from venting due to 
shutdown should be accounted for in the compliance demonstration in the 
semiannual compliance report.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). 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 sources when setting emission standards. As the 
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing 
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' 
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. 
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions 
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider 
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat 
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in 
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A 
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or 
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider 
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards 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. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') 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) (``The 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, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events 
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such 
information.
    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will 
result in a violation of the standard for this source category. For 
example, facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control 
equipment indicated in the 2018 survey that interlocks would shut down 
the process if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and facilities may 
also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat the emissions. 
The MACT standards are based on a percent reduction of HAP over a 6-
month rolling period per group of equipment. Therefore, the malfunction 
of a singular piece of equipment in a single month over this period is 
unlikely to result in an exceedance of the standard. The EPA is 
soliciting information on the type of events that constitute a 
malfunction event, and best practices and best level of emission 
control during malfunction events. The EPA is also soliciting 
information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In 
addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP 
emissions during malfunction events for the MVP and CEP source 
categories, including the cause of malfunctions, the frequency of 
malfunctions, the duration of malfunctions, and the estimate of HAP 
emitted during each malfunction.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the 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. The EPA would also consider whether the 
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in 
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable

[[Page 47368]]

and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 
operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in 
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead 
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5515 that reflects the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5515 does not include that 
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no'' 
in column 4. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not 
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant 
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5515.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to 
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to 
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a 
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample 
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan 
requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from 
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision 
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply 
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to 
revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and 
changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language of 
40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods 
of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the 
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires 
that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with 
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to 
apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. 
The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement 
at 40 CFR 63.5535. The performance testing requirements we are 
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing 
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include 
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and 
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being 
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The 
proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance 
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often 
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing 
to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does 
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory 
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that 
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM 
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of 
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in 
column 4. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General 
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA 
is proposing to add to the rule at Table 9 that is identical to 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the 
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be 
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through

[[Page 47369]]

(iv) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead 
proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to Table 9. When a source 
is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will 
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and 
end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. 
Thus, the EPA is proposing to add language to Table 9 requiring that 
sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that 
differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must 
report the date, time, and duration of such periods. The EPA is also 
proposing that sources would be required to record information 
supporting the operating parameter alternatives, including (1) an 
indication that thermal oxidizers reach set point temperature prior to 
emission unit startup, and (2) an indication that scrubbers are 
properly operating prior to emission unit startup. The proposed records 
are required to demonstrate that alternative operating parameter limits 
have been met during periods of startup and shutdown.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in 
column 4. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such 
requirements to Table 9. The regulatory text we are proposing to add 
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General 
Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the 
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution 
control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this 
requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is 
requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the 
failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to 
add to Table 9 a requirement that sources keep records that include a 
list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize 
emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the 
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss 
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, 
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is 
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to 
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine 
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data 
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in 
column 4. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record 
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with 
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM 
plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable 
under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions 
and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to Table 
9.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv), which includes a ``no'' in column 4. When applicable, 
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM 
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. 
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no 
longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in 
column 4. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to 
use the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or 
records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also 
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA 
is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no 
longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 
serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 
Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the periodic reporting requirements 
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.5580 and Table 8. The replacement language 
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates 
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language 
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any 
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual 
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing 
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the 
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list 
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in 
column 4. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for 
startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an 
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not

[[Page 47370]]

consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. 5-Year Periodic Emissions Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the testing and 
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU and is 
proposing the following change. The EPA is proposing to require 
facilities that use non-recovery control devices to conduct periodic 
air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic 
performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date 
of the revised standards and thereafter no longer than 5 years 
following the previous test. Requiring periodic performance tests would 
serve as a check on the accuracy of facilities' mass balance 
calculations and on the efficiency of the control devices used to 
achieve compliance with the standards. Periodic performance tests would 
ensure that control devices are properly maintained over time, thereby 
reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes. We specifically 
request comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements.
3. Electronic Reporting
    Through this action, we are proposing that owners and operators of 
cellulose products manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of 
required initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, 
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and 
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in 
the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415. The proposed rule requires that performance test 
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \24\ at 
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the 
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in 
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. 
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring 
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are 
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the 
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance 
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of 
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For initial notifications and notifications of compliance status, 
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators submit 
notifications as PDFs to CEDRI. For semiannual reports, the proposed 
rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the 
proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.\25\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, 
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Subpart_UUUU_Semiannual_Report.xlsx, available at 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, 
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and 
semiannual reports are required to be submitted according to the 
deadlines specified in 40 CFR 63.5580. Additionally, the EPA has 
identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting 
extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to 
accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the 
discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as 
possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect 
owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot 
successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons 
outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be 
warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes an 
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580. The situation where an 
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or 
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580. 
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the 
facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \27\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \28\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Biofilter Effluent Conductivity
    On November 17, 2006, Viskase Companies, Inc., a company subject to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, which manufactures cellulose food 
casings, submitted a request to the EPA to monitor biofilter effluent 
conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH for the biofilter control 
devices at their facilities in Osceola, Arkansas, and Loudon, 
Tennessee. The request stated that pH is in a range such that effluent 
conductivity would provide a more accurate operating limit:


[[Page 47371]]


    For strong acids and bases, pH values are not very meaningful 
indicators of the concentration. The measurement uncertainty is 
large because pH is a logarithmic scale. Conductivity measurements 
are more suitable than pH measurements for producing accurate and 
reproducible estimates of the concentrations of free acids and bases 
because the relationship between conductivity and concentration is 
almost linear over a range of concentrations.

    Based on the information provided by Viskase, the EPA conditionally 
approved the monitoring request to establish and monitor an effluent 
conductivity operating limit for the biofilter units and stated that 
the effluent conductivity operating limit must be based on a 
performance test and can be supplemented by engineering assessments 
and/or manufacturer's recommendations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Technology Review for the Cellulose Products 
Manufacturing Source Category--Proposed Rule, Appendix E, available 
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to granting the alternative monitoring request per 40 
CFR 63.8(f), the EPA is also proposing an amendment to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UUUU, to add biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative 
parameter to pH. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to revise the 
operating limits table (Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add 
biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of biofilter operating 
limits, revise the performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535 
to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of parameters for 
which operating limits must be established during the compliance 
demonstration, and revise the continuous compliance with operating 
limits table (Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add biofilter 
effluent conductivity to the list of parameters to monitor to 
demonstrate continuous compliance.
5. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference the following documents into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses--Part 
10, was previously approved for incorporation by reference for Table 4 
to Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
     ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart 
UUUU of Part 63.
     ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column 
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to 
Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
     ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ 
and at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).
6. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The following lists additional proposed changes that address 
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revise the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5505 to clarify that 
CS2 storage tanks part of a submerged unloading and storage operation 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, is not subject to 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Kb. These types of tanks are not the type of storage 
vessels in terms of their physical siting and operational design that 
were intended to be regulated under NSPS Kb, even when these tanks meet 
the vapor pressure and designed capacity under the rule. These tanks 
are completely submerged in a common water bath and have no air space 
within the tanks due to the continuous water layer above the CS2 layer, 
therefore, the tanks do not have direct CS2 gaseous emissions.
     Revise the performance test requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535 
to specify the conditions for conducting performance tests;
     Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to 
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to correct an error in the reference to a test 
method appendix;
     Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to 
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add IBR for ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 
2010), ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), and ASTM D6348-12e1;
     Revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5580 and 
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements tables (Tables 8 and 9 to 
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to include the requirements to record and 
report information on failures to meet the applicable standard and the 
corrective actions taken; and
     Revise the General Provisions applicability table (Table 
10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to align with those sections of the 
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    For the proposed rule revisions related to the removal of the 
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods 
and the additional electronic reporting requirements, the EPA is 
proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the 
amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the 
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
September 9, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, 
including the amendments being proposed unless indicated specifically 
otherwise, immediately upon startup. All affected existing facilities 
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UUUU, until the applicable compliance date of the amended 
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule 
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would 
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
UUUU. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add 
a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance 
status, performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the 
new template be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to 
change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the 
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing 
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan.
    Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert 
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary 
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance 
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new 
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic 
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different 
time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to 
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and

[[Page 47372]]

understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to 
ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and 
shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; 
adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate 
revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised 
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different 
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the 
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our 
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of 
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be 
the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is 
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of 
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the 
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed 
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of 
information from sources in this source category regarding specific 
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed 
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for 
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that 
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance 
date.
    Additionally, we are also proposing new requirements to conduct 
periodic performance testing every 5 years. Establishing a compliance 
date earlier than 3 years for the first periodic performance test can 
cause scheduling issues as affected sources compete for a limited 
number of testing contractors. Considering these scheduling issues, we 
are proposing that each existing affected source, and each new and 
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after August 28, 2000, and on or before September 9, 
2019 and uses a non-recovery control device to comply with the 
standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or 
before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no 
later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance 
test. For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019 and uses a non-
recovery control device to comply with the standards, we are proposing 
that owners and operators must conduct the first periodic performance 
test no later than 60 months following the initial performance test 
required by 40 CFR 63.5535 and conduct subsequent periodic performance 
tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous 
performance test.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are currently eight facilities operating in the United States 
that conduct MVP and CEP operations that are subject to the Cellulose 
Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU 
affected source for the MVP source category is each cellulose food 
casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operation, as defined 
in 40 CFR 63.5610. The affected source for the CEP source category is 
each cellulose ether operation, as defined in 40 CFR 63.5610.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the MVP and CEP 
facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 4,300 tpy. 
Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do 
not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of the 
proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed 
requirements, including the removal of the SSM exemption and addition 
of periodic emissions testing, may reduce emissions by ensuring proper 
operation of control devices.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The eight facilities that would be subject to the proposed 
amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements and would incur periodic emissions testing 
costs for add-on control devices. The nationwide costs associated with 
the proposed periodic testing requirements are estimated to be $490,000 
(2018$) over the 5 years following promulgation of the amendments. For 
further information on the requirement being proposed, see section 
IV.D.2 of this preamble. For further information on the costs 
associated with the proposed requirements, see the memorandum, Costs 
and Environmental Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Cellulose 
Products Manufacturing Industry--Proposed Rule, and the document, 
Supporting Statement for the NESHAP for Cellulose Products 
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU), which are both available 
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated 
cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the 
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among 
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will 
change in response to a proposed rule. Based on the costs associated 
with the periodic testing requirements, no significant economic impacts 
from the proposed amendments are anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if 
finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule. 
Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that 
they apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed amendments 
requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance 
test results, and semiannual reports will increase the usefulness of 
the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will 
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, 
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. 
See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more information.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional 
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are 
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used 
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such 
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to 
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the 
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more 
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-
air-pollution/

[[Page 47373]]

cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. The data 
files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point 
for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1974.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are essential in 
determining compliance and mandatory for all operators subject to 
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414). All information submitted to the 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.
    We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UUUU, in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and 
SSM plan requirements, adding periodic emissions testing, providing 
biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to monitoring pH, and 
requiring electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, 
and performance test reports.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include facilities 
subject to the NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 
63, subpart UUUU).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UUUU).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include initial notifications, reports of 
periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for this information collection, averaged over the first 3 years 
of this ICR, is estimated to total 7,256 labor hours (per year). Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $954,000 per year, including $834,000 per 
year in labor costs and $120,000 per year in annualized capital or 
operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than October 9, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. No 
small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule. As such, 
this action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal

[[Page 47374]]

government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No 
tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the 
following risk reports titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in 
the docket for this action.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use 
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,'' for the measurement of toluene and 
total organic HAP. This method employs a direct interface gas 
chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify the 36 
volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of these compounds) listed on 
the ASTM website. This ASTM has been approved by the EPA as an 
alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all 
known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as 
measurable. This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because 
their atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified 
as a total VOC method.
    The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), 
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds 
in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.'' 
This method covers the identification and simultaneous measurement of 
purgeable volatile organic compounds. It has been validated for treated 
drinking water, wastewater, and groundwater. ASTM D5790-95 is 
acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 624 and for the analysis of 
total organic HAP in wastewater samples. For wastewater analyses, this 
ASTM method should be used with the sampling procedures of EPA Method 
25D or an equivalent method in order to be a complete alternative. The 
ASTM standard is validated for all of the 21 volatile organic HAP 
(including toluene) targeted by EPA Method 624, but it is also 
validated for an additional 14 HAP not targeted by the EPA method.
    The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous 
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable alternative to using EPA Method 
320 with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the 
standard as mandatory. This test method provides the volume 
concentration of detected analytes. Converting the volume concentration 
to a mass emission rate using a particular compound's molecular weight, 
and the effluent volumetric flow rate, temperature, and pressure is 
useful for determining the impact of that compound to the atmosphere. 
When using ASTM D6348-12e, the following conditions must be met: (1) 
The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 
6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-
03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) 
must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order 
for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater 
than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If 
the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 
test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be 
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each 
compound must be reported in the test report, and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that 
compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured 
Concentration in the Stack))/(%R) x 100.
    The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post 
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
    While the EPA has identified another 14 voluntary consensus 
standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, 
we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of 
these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, 
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and 
policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, in the docket for this 
proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.3 
of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities and Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, which are located in the public 
docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference,

[[Page 47375]]

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to 
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(72), (85), (89), 
and (91) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (72) ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column 
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to 
subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1571(a) and Table 4 to subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
    (89) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.5799 and 63.5850.
* * * * *
    (91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, and appendix A 
to this part: Method 325B.
* * * * *

Subpart UUUU--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.5505 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5505   What emission limits, operating limits, and work 
practice standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (f) Carbon disulfide storage tanks part of a submerged unloading 
and storage operation subject to this part are not subject to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic 
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for 
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After 
July 23, 1984).
0
4. Section 63.5515 is amended by revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b) 
introductory text, adding and reserving paragraph (b)(2), and revising 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5515   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or 
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced 
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must be in 
compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work 
practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each such 
source you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this 
subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which 
construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you 
must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and 
work practice standards in this subpart at all times.
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or 
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced 
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must 
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions 
in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register] for each such source, and after September 
9, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or 
reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you must always 
operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the 
levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions 
does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
* * * * *
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or 
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced 
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must 
maintain a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan 
according the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after [DATE 180 
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or 
reconstruction source for which construction or reconstruction 
commenced after September 9, 2019.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.5535 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing and 
reserving paragraph (c), revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(7) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5535  What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) You must conduct each performance test for continuous process 
vents and combinations of batch and continuous process vents based on 
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating 
conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested, 
according to the specific conditions in Table 4 to this Subpart UUUU. 
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You 
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You 
must record the process information that is necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an 
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. 
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as

[[Page 47376]]

may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Viscose process affected sources that must use non-recovery 
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to 
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to 
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery 
control devices and incorporate this information in their material 
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in 
Sec.  63.5541.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Cellulose ether affected sources that must use non-recovery 
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to 
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to 
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery 
control devices and incorporate this information in their material 
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in 
Sec.  63.5541.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (7) For biofilters, record the pressure drop across the biofilter 
beds, inlet gas temperature, and effluent pH or conductivity averaged 
over the same time period as the compliance demonstration while the 
vent stream is routed and constituted normally. Locate the pressure, 
temperature, and pH or conductivity sensors in positions that provide 
representative measurement of these parameters. Ensure the sample is 
properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5541 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5541   When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control 
device to comply with Sec.  63.5515 constructed or reconstructed before 
September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test must be performed by 
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and 
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
    (b) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control 
device to comply with Sec.  63.5515 that commences construction or 
reconstruction after September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test 
must be performed no later than 60 months after the initial performance 
test required by Sec.  63.5535, and subsequent tests no later than 60 
months thereafter.
0
7. Section 63.5545 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5545   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(3) and (4)(ii), and 
63.5515(b), and 63.5580(c)(6);
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8, Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix F, and according to the applicable performance 
specification listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.5555 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5555   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?

* * * * *
    (d) Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
Sec.  63.5515(b). The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.5515(b).
0
9. Section 63.5575 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5575   What notifications must I submit and when?

    You must submit each notification in Table 7 to this subpart that 
applies to you by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart. 
Initial notifications and Notification of Compliance Status Reports 
shall be electronically submitted in portable document format (PDF) 
following the procedure specified in Sec.  63.5580(g).
0
10. Section 63.5580 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2);
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(14); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.5580  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submitting reports under Sec.  63.10, you must submit each compliance 
report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following 
the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or 
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced 
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, if you had a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you 
took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan, the compliance report must include the information in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i). No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required 
for any new or reconstruction source for which construction or 
reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019. After [DATE 180 DAYS 
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this section 
is no longer relevant.
* * * * *
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit 
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit or operating 
limit in this subpart (see Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart), you must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) 
through (14) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (14) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over

[[Page 47377]]

any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate 
the emissions.
* * * * *
    (g) Submitting notifications or reports electronically. If you are 
required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph, you must submit notifications or reports 
to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Notifications must be submitted as PDFs 
to CEDRI. You must use the semi-annual compliance report template on 
the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed 
on the CEDRI website. The semi-annual compliance report must be 
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the 
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business 
information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information 
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the 
appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (h) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing 
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the 
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI, 
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (i) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance 
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the results of 
the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed 
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the 
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance 
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must 
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the 
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or 
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in this 
paragraph (i).
    (j) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to 
electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the 
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to 
timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA 
system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is

[[Page 47378]]

solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (k) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically 
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim 
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
11. Section 63.5590 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5590   In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part 
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
12. Table 2 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Operating Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.5505(b), you must meet the appropriate 
operating limits in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     For the following control
          technique . . .                      you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser......................  maintain the daily average condenser
                                     outlet gas or condensed liquid
                                     temperature no higher than the
                                     value established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer...............  a. for periods of normal operation,
                                     maintain the daily average thermal
                                     oxidizer firebox temperature no
                                     lower than the value established
                                     during the compliance demonstration
                                    b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
                                     OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
                                     sources and new or reconstructed
                                     sources for which construction or
                                     reconstruction commenced after June
                                     11, 2002, but on or before
                                     September 9, 2019, and immediately
                                     upon startup for new or
                                     reconstructed sources for which
                                     construction or reconstruction
                                     commenced after September 9, 2019,
                                     maintain documentation for periods
                                     of startup demonstrating that the
                                     oxidizer was properly operating
                                     (e.g., firebox temperature had
                                     reached the setpoint temperature)
                                     prior to emission unit startup.
3. water scrubber.................  a. for periods of normal operation,
                                     maintain the daily average scrubber
                                     pressure drop and scrubber liquid
                                     flow rate within the range of
                                     values established during the
                                     compliance demonstration;
                                    b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
                                     OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
                                     sources and new or reconstructed
                                     sources for which construction or
                                     reconstruction commenced after June
                                     11, 2002, but on or before
                                     September 9, 2019], and immediately
                                     upon startup for new or
                                     reconstructed sources for which
                                     construction or reconstruction
                                     commenced after September 9, 2019,
                                     maintain documentation for periods
                                     of startup and shutdown to confirm
                                     that the scrubber is operating
                                     properly prior to emission unit
                                     startup and continues to operate
                                     properly until emission unit
                                     shutdown is complete. Appropriate
                                     startup and shutdown operating
                                     parameters may be based on
                                     equipment design, manufacturer's
                                     recommendations, or other site-
                                     specific operating values
                                     established for normal operating
                                     periods.
4. caustic scrubber...............  a. for periods of normal operation,
                                     maintain the daily average scrubber
                                     pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow
                                     rate, and scrubber liquid pH,
                                     conductivity, or alkalinity within
                                     the range of values established
                                     during the compliance
                                     demonstration;
                                    b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
                                     OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
                                     sources and new or reconstructed
                                     sources for which construction or
                                     reconstruction commenced after June
                                     11, 2002, but on or before
                                     September 9, 2019, and immediately
                                     upon startup for new or
                                     reconstructed sources for which
                                     construction or reconstruction
                                     commenced after September 9, 2019,
                                     maintain documentation for periods
                                     of startup and shutdown to confirm
                                     that the scrubber is operating
                                     properly prior to emission unit
                                     startup and continues to operate
                                     properly until emission unit
                                     shutdown is complete. Appropriate
                                     startup and shutdown operating
                                     parameters may be based on
                                     equipment design, manufacturer's
                                     recommendations, or other site-
                                     specific operating values
                                     established for normal operating
                                     periods.
5. flare..........................  maintain the presence of a pilot
                                     flame.
6. biofilter......................  maintain the daily average biofilter
                                     inlet gas temperature, biofilter
                                     effluent pH or conductivity, and
                                     pressure drop within the operating
                                     values established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.

[[Page 47379]]

 
7. carbon absorber................  maintain the regeneration frequency,
                                     total regeneration adsorber stream
                                     mass or volumetric flow during
                                     carbon bed regeneration, and
                                     temperature of the carbon bed after
                                     regeneration (and within 15 minutes
                                     of completing any cooling cycle(s))
                                     for each regeneration cycle within
                                     the values established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.
8. oil absorber...................  maintain the daily average
                                     absorption liquid flow, absorption
                                     liquid temperature, and steam flow
                                     within the values established
                                     during the compliance
                                     demonstration.
9. any of the control techniques    if using a CEMS, maintain the daily
 specified in this table.            average control efficiency of each
                                     control device no lower than the
                                     value established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.
10. any of the control techniques   a. if you wish to establish
 specified in this table.            alternative operating parameters,
                                     submit the application for approval
                                     of the alternative operating
                                     parameters no later than the
                                     notification of the performance
                                     test or CEMS performance evaluation
                                     or no later than 60 days prior to
                                     any other initial compliance
                                     demonstration;
                                    b. the application must include:
                                     Information justifying the request
                                     for alternative operating
                                     parameters (such as the
                                     infeasibility or impracticality of
                                     using the operating parameters in
                                     this final rule); a description of
                                     the proposed alternative control
                                     device operating parameters; the
                                     monitoring approach; the frequency
                                     of measuring and recording the
                                     alternative parameters; how the
                                     operating limits are to be
                                     calculated; and information
                                     documenting that the alternative
                                     operating parameters would provide
                                     equivalent or better assurance of
                                     compliance with the standard;
                                    c. install, operate, and maintain
                                     the alternative parameter
                                     monitoring systems in accordance
                                     with the application approved by
                                     the Administrator;
                                    d. establish operating limits during
                                     the initial compliance
                                     demonstration based on the
                                     alternative operating parameters
                                     included in the approved
                                     application; and
                                    e. maintain the daily average
                                     alternative operating parameter
                                     values within the values
                                     established during the compliance
                                     demonstration.
11. alternative control technique.  a. submit for approval no later than
                                     the notification of the performance
                                     test or CEMS performance evaluation
                                     or no later than 60 days prior to
                                     any other initial compliance
                                     demonstration a proposed site-
                                     specific plan that includes: A
                                     description of the alternative
                                     control device; test results
                                     verifying the performance of the
                                     control device; the appropriate
                                     operating parameters that will be
                                     monitored; and the frequency of
                                     measuring and recording to
                                     establish continuous compliance
                                     with the operating limits;
                                    b. install, operate, and maintain
                                     the parameter monitoring system for
                                     the alternative control device in
                                     accordance with the plan approved
                                     by the Administrator;
                                    c. establish operating limits during
                                     the initial compliance
                                     demonstration based on the
                                     operating parameters for the
                                     alternative control device included
                                     in the approved plan; and
                                    d. maintain the daily average
                                     operating parameter values for the
                                     alternative control technique
                                     within the values established
                                     during the compliance
                                     demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
13. Table 3 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission 
Limits and Work Practice Standards

    As required in Sec. Sec.  63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you 
must demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission 
limits and work practice standards according to the requirements in the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   for the following      you have demonstrated
              For . . .                        at . . .          emission limit or work  initial compliance if .
                                                                practice standard . . .            . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all viscose process      a. each existing         i. reduce total          (1) reduce total
 vents.                                 cellulose food casing    uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled sulfide
                                        operation.               emissions (reported as   emissions (reported as
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     carbon disulfide) by
                                                                 at least 25% based on    at least 25% based on
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        a 6-month rolling
                                                                 average;                 average;
                                                                ii. for each vent        (2) for each vent
                                                                 stream that you          stream that you
                                                                 control using a          control using a
                                                                 control device, route    control device, route
                                                                 the vent stream          the vent stream
                                                                 through a closed-vent    through a closed-vent
                                                                 system to the control    system to the control
                                                                 device; and.             device; and
                                                                iii. comply with the     (3) comply with the
                                                                 work practice standard   work practice standard
                                                                 for closed-vent          for closed-vent
                                                                 systems.                 systems.

[[Page 47380]]

 
                                       b. each new cellulose    i. reduce total          (1) the average
                                        food casing operation.   uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled total
                                                                 emissions (reported as   sulfide emissions,
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     determined during the
                                                                 at least 75% based on    month-long compliance
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        demonstration or using
                                                                 average;                 engineering
                                                                ii. for each vent         assessments, are
                                                                 stream that you          reduced by at least
                                                                 control using a          75%;
                                                                 control device, route   (2) you have a record
                                                                 the vent stream          of the range of
                                                                 through a closed-vent    operating parameter
                                                                 system to the control    values over the month-
                                                                 device; and.             long compliance
                                                                iii. comply with the      demonstration during
                                                                 work practice standard   which the average
                                                                 for closed-vent          uncontrolled total
                                                                 systems.                 sulfide emissions were
                                                                                          reduced by at least
                                                                                          75%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of total sulfide
                                                                                          emissions; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
                                       c. each existing rayon   i. reduce total          (1) the average
                                        operation.               uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled total
                                                                 emissions (reported as   sulfide emissions,
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     determined during the
                                                                 at least 35% within 3    month-long compliance
                                                                 years after the          demonstration or using
                                                                 effective date based     engineering
                                                                 on a 6-month rolling     assessments, are
                                                                 average; for each vent   reduced by at least
                                                                 stream that you          35% within 3 years
                                                                 control using a          after the effective
                                                                 control device, route    date;
                                                                 the vent stream         (2) you have a record
                                                                 through a closed-vent    of the average
                                                                 system to the control    operating parameter
                                                                 device; and comply       values over the month-
                                                                 with the work practice   long compliance
                                                                 standard for closed-     demonstration during
                                                                 vent systems; and        which the average
                                                                                          uncontrolled total
                                                                                          sulfide emissions were
                                                                                          reduced by at least
                                                                                          35%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of total sulfide
                                                                                          emissions; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems;
                                                                                          and
                                                                ii. reduce total         (1) the average
                                                                 uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled total
                                                                 emissions (reported as   sulfide emissions,
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     determined during the
                                                                 at least 40% within 8    month-long compliance
                                                                 years after the          demonstration or using
                                                                 effective date based     engineering
                                                                 on a 6-month rolling     assessments, are
                                                                 average; for each vent   reduced by at least
                                                                 stream that you          40% within 8 years
                                                                 control using a          after the effective
                                                                 control device, route    date;
                                                                 the vent stream         (2) you have a record
                                                                 through a closed-vent    of the average
                                                                 system to the control    operating parameter
                                                                 device; and comply       values over the month-
                                                                 with the work practice   long compliance
                                                                 standard for closed-     demonstration during
                                                                 vent systems.            which the average
                                                                                          uncontrolled total
                                                                                          sulfide emissions were
                                                                                          reduced by at least
                                                                                          40%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of the total sulfide
                                                                                          emissions; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.

[[Page 47381]]

 
                                       d. each new rayon        i. reduce total          (1) the average
                                        operation.               uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled total
                                                                 emissions (reported as   sulfide emissions,
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     determined during the
                                                                 at least 75%; based on   month-long compliance
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        demonstration or using
                                                                 average;                 engineering
                                                                ii. for each vent         assessments, are
                                                                 stream that you          reduced by at least
                                                                 control using a          75%;
                                                                 control device, route   (2) you have a record
                                                                 the vent stream          of the average
                                                                 through a closed-vent    operating parameter
                                                                 system to the control    values over the month-
                                                                 device; and.             long compliance
                                                                iii. comply with the      demonstration during
                                                                 work practice standard   which the average
                                                                 for closed-vent          uncontrolled total
                                                                 systems.                 sulfide emissions were
                                                                                          reduced by at least
                                                                                          75%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of total sulfide
                                                                                          missions; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
                                       e. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) the average
                                        cellulosic sponge        uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled total
                                        operation.               emissions (reported as   sulfide emissions,
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     determined during the
                                                                 at least 75% based on    month-long compliance
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        demonstration or using
                                                                 average;                 engineering
                                                                ii. for each vent         assessments, are
                                                                 stream that you          reduced by at least
                                                                 control using a          75%;
                                                                 control device, route   (2) you have a record
                                                                 the vent stream          of the average
                                                                 through a closed-vent    operating parameter
                                                                 system to the control    values over the month-
                                                                 device; and.             long compliance
                                                                iii. comply with the      demonstration during
                                                                 work practice standard   which the average
                                                                 for closed-vent          uncontrolled total
                                                                 systems.                 sulfide emissions were
                                                                                          reduced by at least
                                                                                          75%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          and the percent
                                                                                          reduction of total
                                                                                          sulfide emissions; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
                                       f. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) the average
                                        cellophane operation.    uncontrolled sulfide     uncontrolled total
                                                                 emissions (reported as   sulfide emissions,
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     determined during the
                                                                 at least 75% based on    month-long compliance
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        demonstration or using
                                                                 average;                 engineering
                                                                ii. for each vent         assessments, are
                                                                 stream that you          reduced by at least
                                                                 control using a          75%;
                                                                 control device (except  (2) you have a record
                                                                 for retractable hoods    of the average
                                                                 over sulfuric acid       operating parameter
                                                                 baths at a cellophane    values over the month-
                                                                 operation), route the    long compliance
                                                                 vent stream through a    demonstration during
                                                                 closed-vent system to    which the average
                                                                 the control device;      uncontrolled total
                                                                 and.                     sulfide emissions were
                                                                iii. comply with the      reduced by at least
                                                                 work practice standard   75%;
                                                                 for closed-vent         (3) you prepare a
                                                                 systems.                 material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of total sulfide
                                                                                          emissions; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.

[[Page 47382]]

 
2. the sum of all solvent coating      a. each existing or new  i. reduce uncontrolled   (1) the average
 process vents.                         cellophane operation.    toluene emissions by     uncontrolled toluene
                                                                 at least 95% based on    emissions, determined
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        during the month-long
                                                                 average;                 compliance
                                                                ii. for each vent         demonstration or using
                                                                 stream that you          engineering
                                                                 control using a          assessments, are
                                                                 control device, route    reduced by at least
                                                                 the vent stream          95%;
                                                                 through a closed-vent   (2) you have a record
                                                                 system to the control    of the average
                                                                 device; and.             operating parameter
                                                                iii. comply with the      values over the month-
                                                                 work practice standard   long compliance
                                                                 for closed-vent          demonstration during
                                                                 systems.                 which the average
                                                                                          uncontrolled toluene
                                                                                          emissions were reduced
                                                                                          by at least 95%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of toluene emissions;
                                                                                          and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
3. the sum of all cellulose ether      a. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) average
 process vents.                         cellulose ether          uncontrolled organic     uncontrolled total
                                        operation using a        HAP emissions by at      organic HAP emissions,
                                        performance test to      least 99%; ii. for       measured during the
                                        demonstrate initial      each vent stream that    performance test or
                                        compliance; or.          you control using a      determined using
                                                                 control device, route    engineering estimates
                                                                 the vent stream          are reduced by at
                                                                 through a closed-vent    least 99%;
                                                                 system to the control   (2) you have a record
                                                                 device; and iii.         of the average
                                                                 comply with the work     operating parameter
                                                                 practice standard for    values over the
                                                                 closed-vent systems;     performance test
                                                                 or                       during which the
                                                                                          average uncontrolled
                                                                                          total organic HAP
                                                                                          emissions were reduced
                                                                                          by at least 99%; and
                                                                                         (3) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems;
                                                                                          or
                                       b. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) average
                                        cellulose ether          uncontrolled organic     uncontrolled total
                                        operation using a        HAP emissions by at      organic HAP emissions,
                                        material balance         least 99% based on a 6-  determined during the
                                        compliance               month rolling average;   month-long compliance
                                        demonstration to        ii. for each vent         demonstration or using
                                        demonstrate initial      stream that you          engineering estimates
                                        compliance.              control using a          are reduced by at
                                                                 control device, route    least 99%;
                                                                 the vent stream         (2) you have a record
                                                                 through a closed-vent    of the average
                                                                 system to the control    operation parameter
                                                                 device; and iii.         values over the month-
                                                                 comply with the work     long compliance
                                                                 practice standard for    demonstration during
                                                                 closed-vent systems;     which the average
                                                                 or.                      uncontrolled total
                                                                                          organic HAP emissions
                                                                                          were reduced by at
                                                                                          least 99%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of total organic HAP
                                                                                          emissions;
                                                                                         (4) if you use extended
                                                                                          cookout to comply, you
                                                                                          measure the HAP
                                                                                          charged to the
                                                                                          reactor, record the
                                                                                          grade of product
                                                                                          produced, and then
                                                                                          calculate reactor
                                                                                          emissions prior to
                                                                                          extended cookout by
                                                                                          taking a percentage of
                                                                                          the total HAP charged.
4. closed-loop systems...............  each existing or new     operate and maintain     you have a record
                                        cellulose ether          the closed-loop system   certifying that a
                                        operation.               for cellulose ether      closed-loop system is
                                                                 operations.              in use for cellulose
                                                                                          ether operations.

[[Page 47383]]

 
5. each carbon disulfide unloading     a. each existing or new  i. reduce uncontrolled   (1) you have a record
 and storage operation.                 viscose process          carbon disulfide         documenting the 83%
                                        affected source.         emissions by at least    reduction in
                                                                 83% from unloading and   uncontrolled carbon
                                                                 storage operations       disulfide emissions;
                                                                 based on a 6-month       and
                                                                 rolling average if you  (2) if venting to a
                                                                 use an alternative       control device to
                                                                 control technique not    reduce emissions, you
                                                                 listed in this table     comply with the
                                                                 for carbon disulfide     initial compliance
                                                                 unloading and storage    requirements for
                                                                 operations; if using a   closed-vent systems;
                                                                 control device to
                                                                 reduce emissions,
                                                                 route emissions
                                                                 through a closed-vent
                                                                 system to the control
                                                                 device; and comply
                                                                 with the work practice
                                                                 standard for closed-
                                                                 vent systems;
                                                                ii. reduce uncontrolled  (1) you comply with the
                                                                 carbon disulfide by at   initial compliance
                                                                 least 0.14% from         requirements for
                                                                 viscose process vents    viscose process vents
                                                                 based on a 6-month       at existing or new
                                                                 rolling average; for     cellulose food casing,
                                                                 each vent stream that    rayon, cellulosic
                                                                 you control using a      sponge, or cellophane
                                                                 control device, route    operations, as
                                                                 the vent stream          applicable;
                                                                 through a closed-vent   (2) the 0.14% reduction
                                                                 system to the control    must be in addition to
                                                                 device; and comply       the reduction already
                                                                 with the work practice   required for viscose
                                                                 standard for closed-     process vents at
                                                                 vent systems;            existing or new
                                                                                          cellulose food casing,
                                                                                          rayon, cellulosic
                                                                                          sponge, or cellophane
                                                                                          operations, as
                                                                                          applicable; and
                                                                                         (3) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems;
                                                                iii. install a nitrogen  you have a record
                                                                 unloading and storage    certifying that a
                                                                 system; or               nitrogen unloading and
                                                                                          storage system is in
                                                                                          use; or
                                                                iv. install a nitrogen   (1) you have a record
                                                                 unloading system;        certifying that a
                                                                 reduce uncontrolled      nitrogen unloading
                                                                 carbon disulfide by at   system is in use;
                                                                 least 0.045% from       (2) you comply with the
                                                                 viscose process vents    initial compliance
                                                                 based on a 6-month       requirements for
                                                                 rolling average; for     viscose process vents
                                                                 each vent stream that    at existing or new
                                                                 you control using a      cellulose food casing,
                                                                 control device, route    rayon, cellulosic
                                                                 the vent stream          sponge, or cellophane
                                                                 through a closed-vent    operations, as
                                                                 system to the control    applicable;
                                                                 device; and comply      (3) the 0.045%
                                                                 with the work practice   reduction must be in
                                                                 standard for closed-     addition to the
                                                                 vent systems.            reduction already
                                                                                          required for viscose
                                                                                          process vents at
                                                                                          cellulose food casing,
                                                                                          rayon, cellulosic
                                                                                          sponge, or cellophane
                                                                                          operations, as
                                                                                          applicable; and
                                                                                         (4) you comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.

[[Page 47384]]

 
6. each toluene storage vessel.......  a. each existing or new  i. reduce uncontrolled   (1) the average
                                        cellophane operation.    toluene emissions by     uncontrolled toluene
                                                                 at least 95% based on    emissions, determined
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        during the month-long
                                                                 average;                 compliance
                                                                ii. if using a control    demonstration or using
                                                                 device to reduce         engineering
                                                                 emissions, route the     assessments, are
                                                                 emissions through a      reduced by at least
                                                                 closed-vent system to    95%;
                                                                 the control device;     (2) you have a record
                                                                 and.                     of the average
                                                                iii. comply with the      operating parameter
                                                                 work practice standard   values over the month-
                                                                 for closed-vent          long compliance
                                                                 systems.                 demonstration during
                                                                                          which the average
                                                                                          uncontrolled toluene
                                                                                          emissions were reduced
                                                                                          by at least 95%;
                                                                                         (3) you prepare a
                                                                                          material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of toluene emissions;
                                                                                          and
                                                                                         (4) if venting to a
                                                                                          control device to
                                                                                          reduce emissions, you
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
7. equipment leaks...................  a. each existing or new  i. comply with the       you comply with the
                                        cellulose ether          applicable equipment     applicable
                                        operation.               leak standards of Sec.   requirements described
                                                                  Sec.   63.162 through   in the Notification of
                                                                 63.179; or               Compliance Status
                                                                                          Report provisions in
                                                                                          Sec.   63.182(a)(2)
                                                                                          and (c)(1) through
                                                                                          (3), except that
                                                                                          references to the term
                                                                                          ``process unit'' mean
                                                                                          ``cellulose ether
                                                                                          process unit'' for the
                                                                                          purposes of this
                                                                                          subpart; or
                                                                ii. comply with the      you comply with the
                                                                 applicable equipment     applicable
                                                                 leak standards of Sec.   requirements described
                                                                  Sec.   63.1021          in the Initial
                                                                 through 63.1027.         Compliance Status
                                                                                          Report provisions of
                                                                                          Sec.   63.1039(a),
                                                                                          except that references
                                                                                          to the term ``process
                                                                                          unit'' mean
                                                                                          ``cellulose ether
                                                                                          process unit'' for the
                                                                                          purposes of this
                                                                                          subpart.
8. all sources of wastewater           each existing or new     comply with the          you comply with the
 emissions.                             cellulose ether          applicable wastewater    applicability and
                                        operation.               provisions of Sec.       Group 1/Group 2
                                                                 63.105 and Sec.  Sec.    determination
                                                                  63.132 through 63.140.  provisions of Sec.
                                                                                          63.144 and the initial
                                                                                          compliance provisions
                                                                                          of Sec.  Sec.   63.105
                                                                                          and 63.145.
9. liquid streams in open systems....  each existing or new     comply with the          you install emission
                                        cellulose ether          applicable provisions    suppression equipment
                                        operation.               of Sec.   63.149,        and conduct an initial
                                                                 except that references   inspection according
                                                                 to ``chemical            to the provisions of
                                                                 manufacturing process    to Sec.  Sec.   63.133
                                                                 unit'' mean              through 63.137.
                                                                 ``cellulose ether
                                                                 process unit'' for the
                                                                 purposes of this
                                                                 subpart.
10. closed-vent system used to route   a. each existing or new  i. conduct annual        (1) you conduct an
 emissions to a control device.         affected source.         inspections, repair      initial inspection of
                                                                 leaks, and maintain      the closed-vent system
                                                                 records as specified     and maintain records
                                                                 in Sec.   63.148.        according to Sec.
                                                                                          63.148;
                                                                                         (2) you prepare a
                                                                                          written plan for
                                                                                          inspecting unsafe-to-
                                                                                          inspect and difficult-
                                                                                          to-inspect equipment
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          63.148(g)(2) and
                                                                                          (h)(2); and
                                                                                         (3) you repair any
                                                                                          leaks and maintain
                                                                                          records according to
                                                                                          Sec.   63.148.
11. closed-vent system containing a    a. each existing or new  i. install, calibrate,   you have a record
 bypass line that could divert a vent   affected source.         maintain, and operate    documenting that you
 stream away from a control device,                              a flow indicator as      installed a flow
 except for equipment needed for                                 specified in Sec.        indicator as specified
 safety purposes (described in Sec.                              63.148(f)(1); or         in Table 1 to this
 63.148(f)(3)).                                                                           subpart; or

[[Page 47385]]

 
                                                                ii. secure the bypass    you have record
                                                                 line valve in the        documenting that you
                                                                 closed position with a   have secured the
                                                                 car-seal or lock-and-    bypass line valve as
                                                                 key type configuration   specified in Table 1
                                                                 and inspect the seal     to this subpart.
                                                                 or closure mechanism
                                                                 at least once per
                                                                 month as specified in
                                                                 Sec.   63.148(f)(2).
12. heat exchanger system that cools   a. each existing or new  i. monitor and repair    (1) you determine that
 process equipment or materials in      affected source.         the heat exchanger       the heat exchanger
 the process unit.                                               system according to      system is exempt from
                                                                 Sec.   63.104(a)         monitoring
                                                                 through (e), except      requirements because
                                                                 that references to       it meets one of the
                                                                 ``chemical               conditions in Sec.
                                                                 manufacturing process    63.104(a)(1) through
                                                                 unit'' mean              (6), and you document
                                                                 ``cellulose food         this finding in your
                                                                 casing, rayon,           Notification of
                                                                 cellulosic sponge,       Compliance Status
                                                                 cellophane, or           Report; or
                                                                 cellulose ether         (2) if your heat
                                                                 process unit'' for the   exchanger system is
                                                                 purposes of this         not exempt, you
                                                                 subpart.                 identify in your
                                                                                          Notification of
                                                                                          Compliance Status
                                                                                          Report the HAP or
                                                                                          other representative
                                                                                          substance that you
                                                                                          will monitor, or you
                                                                                          prepare and maintain a
                                                                                          site-specific plan
                                                                                          containing the
                                                                                          information required
                                                                                          by Sec.   63.104(c)
                                                                                          (1) (i) through (iv)
                                                                                          that documents the
                                                                                          procedures you will
                                                                                          use to detect leaks by
                                                                                          monitoring surrogate
                                                                                          indicators of the
                                                                                          leak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
14. Table 4 to Subpart UUUU is amended to read as follows:

Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests

    As required in Sec. Sec.  63.5530(b) and 63.5535(a), (b), (g)(1), 
and (h)(1), you must conduct performance tests, other initial 
compliance demonstrations, and CEMS performance evaluations and 
establish operating limits according to the requirements in the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               according to the
            For . . .                  at . . .         you must . . .        using . . .          following
                                                                                              requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all process vents.  a. the sum of all   i. select sampling  EPA Method 1 or 1A  sampling sites
                                   process vents.      port's location     in appendix A-1     must be located
                                                       and the number of   to 40 CFR part 60   at the inlet and
                                                       traverse points;.   of this chapter;    outlet to each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                      ii. determine       EPA Method 2, 2A,   you may use EPA
                                                       velocity and        2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G   Method 2A, 2C,
                                                       volumetric flow     in appendices A-1   2D, 2F, or 2G as
                                                       rate;.              and A-2 to part     an alternative to
                                                                           60 of this          using EPA Method
                                                                           chapter.            2, as
                                                                                               appropriate;
                                                      iii. conduct gas    (1) EPA Method 3,   you may use EPA
                                                       analysis; and,.     3A, or 3B in        Method 3A or 3B
                                                                           appendix A-2 to     as an alternative
                                                                           part 60 of this     to using EPA
                                                                           chapter; or,        Method 3; or,
                                                                          (2) ASME PTC 19.10- you may use ASME
                                                                           1981--Part 10       PTC 19.10-1981--
                                                                           (incorporated by    Part 10 as an
                                                                           reference--see      alternative to
                                                                           Sec.   63.14);      using the manual
                                                                           and,                procedures (but
                                                                                               not instrumental
                                                                                               procedures) in
                                                                                               EPA Method 3B.
                                                      iv. measure         EPA Method 4 in
                                                       moisture content    appendix A-3 to
                                                       of the stack gas.   part 60 of this
                                                                           chapter.
2. the sum of all viscose         a. each existing    i. measure total    (1) EPA Method 15   (a) you must
 process vents.                    or new viscose      sulfide emissions.  in appendix A-5     conduct testing
                                   process source.                         to part 60 of       of emissions at
                                                                           this chapter; or    the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (b) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               viscose process
                                                                                               vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               viscose process
                                                                                               vents at normal
                                                                                               operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch viscose
                                                                                               process vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration; or
                                                                          (2) carbon          (a) you must
                                                                           disulfide and/or    measure emissions
                                                                           hydrogen sulfide    at the inlet and
                                                                           CEMS, as            outlet of each
                                                                           applicable;         control device
                                                                                               using CEMS;

[[Page 47386]]

 
                                                                                              (b) you must
                                                                                               install, operate,
                                                                                               and maintain the
                                                                                               CEMS according to
                                                                                               the applicable
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               specification (PS-
                                                                                               7, PS-8, PS-9, or
                                                                                               PS-15) of 40 CFR
                                                                                               part 60, appendix
                                                                                               B; and
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               collect CEMS
                                                                                               emissions data at
                                                                                               the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CEMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
3. the sum of all solvent         a. each existing    i. measure toluene  (1) EPA Method 18   (a) you must
 coating process vents.            or new cellophane   emissions.          in appendix A-6     conduct testing
                                   operation.                              to part 60 of       of emissions at
                                                                           this chapter, or    the inlet and
                                                                           Method 320 in       outlet of each
                                                                           appendix A to       control device;
                                                                           part 63; or.
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               EPA Method 18 or
                                                                                               320 to determine
                                                                                               the control
                                                                                               efficiency of any
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               for organic
                                                                                               compounds; for a
                                                                                               combustion
                                                                                               device, you must
                                                                                               use only HAP that
                                                                                               are present in
                                                                                               the inlet to the
                                                                                               control device to
                                                                                               characterize the
                                                                                               percent reduction
                                                                                               across the
                                                                                               combustion
                                                                                               device;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch solvent
                                                                                               coating process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch solvent
                                                                                               coating process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                          (2) ASTM D6420-99   (a) you must
                                                                           (Reapproved 2010)   conduct testing
                                                                           (incorporated by    of emissions at
                                                                           reference--see      the inlet and
                                                                           Sec.   63.14); or.  outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               ASTM D6420-99
                                                                                               (Reapproved 2010)
                                                                                               as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method 18
                                                                                               only where: the
                                                                                               target
                                                                                               compound(s) are
                                                                                               known and are
                                                                                               listed in ASTM
                                                                                               D6420-99 as
                                                                                               measurable; this
                                                                                               ASTM should not
                                                                                               be used for
                                                                                               methane and
                                                                                               ethane because
                                                                                               their atomic mass
                                                                                               is less than 35;
                                                                                               ASTM D6420 should
                                                                                               never be
                                                                                               specified as a
                                                                                               total VOC method;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch solvent
                                                                                               coating process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
                                                                          (3) ASTM D6348-     (a) you must
                                                                           12e1.               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions at
                                                                                               the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;

[[Page 47387]]

 
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               ASTM D6348-12e1
                                                                                               as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method 320
                                                                                               only where the
                                                                                               following
                                                                                               conditions are
                                                                                               met: (1) The test
                                                                                               plan preparation
                                                                                               and
                                                                                               implementation in
                                                                                               the Annexes to
                                                                                               ASTM D 6348-03,
                                                                                               Sections A1
                                                                                               through A8 are
                                                                                               mandatory; and
                                                                                               (2) in ASTM D6348-
                                                                                               03 Annex A5
                                                                                               (Analyte Spiking
                                                                                               Technique), the
                                                                                               percent recovery
                                                                                               (%R) must be
                                                                                               determined for
                                                                                               each target
                                                                                               analyte (Equation
                                                                                               A5.5). In order
                                                                                               for the test data
                                                                                               to be acceptable
                                                                                               for a compound,
                                                                                               %R must be
                                                                                               greater than or
                                                                                               equal to 70
                                                                                               percent and less
                                                                                               than or equal to
                                                                                               130 percent. If
                                                                                               the %R value does
                                                                                               not meet this
                                                                                               criterion for a
                                                                                               target compound,
                                                                                               the test data are
                                                                                               not acceptable
                                                                                               for that compound
                                                                                               and the test must
                                                                                               be repeated for
                                                                                               that analyte
                                                                                               (i.e., the
                                                                                               sampling and/or
                                                                                               analytical
                                                                                               procedure should
                                                                                               be adjusted
                                                                                               before a retest).
                                                                                               The %R value for
                                                                                               each compound
                                                                                               must be reported
                                                                                               in the test
                                                                                               report, and all
                                                                                               field
                                                                                               measurements must
                                                                                               be corrected with
                                                                                               the calculated %R
                                                                                               value for that
                                                                                               compound by using
                                                                                               the following
                                                                                               equation:
                                                                                               Reported Results
                                                                                               = ((Measured
                                                                                               Concentration in
                                                                                               the Stack))/(%R)
                                                                                               x 100.
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch solvent
                                                                                               coating process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
4. the sum of all cellulose       a. each existing    i. measure total    (1) EPA Method 18   (a) you must
 ether process vents.              or new cellulose    organic HAP         in appendix A-6     conduct testing
                                   ether operation.    emissions.          to part 60 of       of emissions at
                                                                           this chapter or     the inlet and
                                                                           Method 320 in       outlet of each
                                                                           appendix A to       control device;
                                                                           part 63, or.       (b) you may use
                                                                                               EPA Method 18 or
                                                                                               320 to determine
                                                                                               the control
                                                                                               efficiency of any
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               for organic
                                                                                               compounds; for a
                                                                                               combustion
                                                                                               device, you must
                                                                                               use only HAP that
                                                                                               are present in
                                                                                               the inlet to the
                                                                                               control device to
                                                                                               characterize the
                                                                                               percent reduction
                                                                                               across the
                                                                                               combustion
                                                                                               device;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch cellulose
                                                                                               ether process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch cellulose
                                                                                               ether process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                          (2) ASTM D6420-99   (a) you must
                                                                           (Reapproved 2010)   conduct testing
                                                                           (incorporated by    of emissions at
                                                                           reference--see      the inlet and
                                                                           Sec.   63.14); or.  outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;

[[Page 47388]]

 
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               ASTM D6420-99
                                                                                               (Reapproved 2010)
                                                                                               as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method 18
                                                                                               only where: the
                                                                                               target
                                                                                               compound(s) are
                                                                                               known and are
                                                                                               listed in ASTM
                                                                                               D6420-99 as
                                                                                               measurable; this
                                                                                               ASTM should not
                                                                                               be used for
                                                                                               methane and
                                                                                               ethane because
                                                                                               their atomic mass
                                                                                               is less than 35;
                                                                                               ASTM D6420 should
                                                                                               never be
                                                                                               specified as a
                                                                                               total VOC method;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch cellulose
                                                                                               ether process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               performance test
                                                                                               and determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               performance test.
                                                                          (3) ASTM D6348-     (a) you must
                                                                           12e1.               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions at
                                                                                               the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               ASTM D6348-12e1
                                                                                               as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method 320
                                                                                               only where the
                                                                                               following
                                                                                               conditions are
                                                                                               met: (1) The test
                                                                                               plan preparation
                                                                                               and
                                                                                               implementation in
                                                                                               the Annexes to
                                                                                               ASTM D 6348-03,
                                                                                               Sections A1
                                                                                               through A8 are
                                                                                               mandatory; and
                                                                                               (2) in ASTM D6348-
                                                                                               03 Annex A5
                                                                                               (Analyte Spiking
                                                                                               Technique), the
                                                                                               percent recovery
                                                                                               (%R) must be
                                                                                               determined for
                                                                                               each target
                                                                                               analyte (Equation
                                                                                               A5.5). In order
                                                                                               for the test data
                                                                                               to be acceptable
                                                                                               for a compound,
                                                                                               %R must be
                                                                                               greater than or
                                                                                               equal to 70
                                                                                               percent and less
                                                                                               than or equal to
                                                                                               130 percent. If
                                                                                               the %R value does
                                                                                               not meet this
                                                                                               criterion for a
                                                                                               target compound,
                                                                                               the test data are
                                                                                               not acceptable
                                                                                               for that compound
                                                                                               and the test must
                                                                                               be repeated for
                                                                                               that analyte
                                                                                               (i.e., the
                                                                                               sampling and/or
                                                                                               analytical
                                                                                               procedure should
                                                                                               be adjusted
                                                                                               before a retest).
                                                                                               The %R value for
                                                                                               each compound
                                                                                               must be reported
                                                                                               in the test
                                                                                               report, and all
                                                                                               field
                                                                                               measurements must
                                                                                               be corrected with
                                                                                               the calculated %R
                                                                                               value for that
                                                                                               compound by using
                                                                                               the following
                                                                                               equation:
                                                                                               Reported Results
                                                                                               = ((Measured
                                                                                               Concentration in
                                                                                               the Stack))/(%R)
                                                                                               x 100.
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch solvent
                                                                                               coating process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
                                                                          (3) EPA Method 25   (a) you must
                                                                           in appendix A-7     conduct testing
                                                                           to part 60 of       of emissions at
                                                                           this chapter; or.   the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (b) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions at
                                                                                               the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;

[[Page 47389]]

 
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch cellulose
                                                                                               ether process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               performance test
                                                                                               and determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               performance test;
                                                                                               or
                                                                          (4) EPA Method 25A  (a) you must
                                                                           in appendix A-7     conduct testing
                                                                           to part 60 of       of emissions at
                                                                           this chapter.       the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               EPA Method 25A
                                                                                               if: an exhaust
                                                                                               gas volatile
                                                                                               organic matter
                                                                                               concentration of
                                                                                               50 ppmv or less
                                                                                               is required in
                                                                                               order to comply
                                                                                               with the emission
                                                                                               limit; the
                                                                                               volatile organic
                                                                                               matter
                                                                                               concentration at
                                                                                               the inlet to the
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               and the required
                                                                                               level of control
                                                                                               are such as to
                                                                                               result in exhaust
                                                                                               volatile organic
                                                                                               matter
                                                                                               concentrations of
                                                                                               50 ppmv or less;
                                                                                               or because of the
                                                                                               high control
                                                                                               efficiency of the
                                                                                               control device,
                                                                                               the anticipated
                                                                                               volatile organic
                                                                                               matter
                                                                                               concentration at
                                                                                               the control
                                                                                               device exhaust is
                                                                                               50 ppmv or less,
                                                                                               regardless of the
                                                                                               inlet
                                                                                               concentration;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               cellulose ether
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch cellulose
                                                                                               ether process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part;
                                                                                               and,
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               performance test
                                                                                               and determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               performance test.
5. each toluene storage vessel..  a. each existing    i. measure toluene  (1) EPA Method 18   (a) if venting to
                                   or new cellophane   emissions.          in appendix A-6     a control device
                                   operation.                              to part 60 of       to reduce
                                                                           this chapter or     emissions, you
                                                                           Method 320 in       must conduct
                                                                           appendix A to       testing of
                                                                           part 63; or.        emissions at the
                                                                                               inlet and outlet
                                                                                               of each control
                                                                                               device;
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               EPA Method 18 or
                                                                                               320 to determine
                                                                                               the control
                                                                                               efficiency of any
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               for organic
                                                                                               compounds; for a
                                                                                               combustion
                                                                                               device, you must
                                                                                               use only HAP that
                                                                                               are present in
                                                                                               the inlet to the
                                                                                               control device to
                                                                                               characterize the
                                                                                               percent reduction
                                                                                               across the
                                                                                               combustion
                                                                                               device;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               storage vessel
                                                                                               vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               storage vessel
                                                                                               vents at normal
                                                                                               operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535 for
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               process vents;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch storage
                                                                                               vessel vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c) for
                                                                                               batch process
                                                                                               vents, except
                                                                                               that the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part;
                                                                                               and,
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration; or
                                                                          (2) ASTM D6420-99   (a) if venting to
                                                                           (Reapproved 2010)   a control device
                                                                           (incorporated by    to reduce
                                                                           reference--see      emissions, you
                                                                           Sec.   63.14); or.  must conduct
                                                                                               testing of
                                                                                               emissions at the
                                                                                               inlet and outlet
                                                                                               of each control
                                                                                               device;

[[Page 47390]]

 
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               ASTM D6420-99
                                                                                               (Reapproved 2010)
                                                                                               as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method 18
                                                                                               only where: the
                                                                                               target
                                                                                               compound(s) are
                                                                                               known and are
                                                                                               listed in ASTM
                                                                                               D6420-99 as
                                                                                               measurable; this
                                                                                               ASTM should not
                                                                                               be used for
                                                                                               methane and
                                                                                               ethane because
                                                                                               their atomic mass
                                                                                               is less than 35;
                                                                                               ASTM D6420 should
                                                                                               never be
                                                                                               specified as a
                                                                                               total VOC method;
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               storage vessel
                                                                                               vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               storage vessel
                                                                                               vents at normal
                                                                                               operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535 for
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               process vents;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch storage
                                                                                               vessel vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c) for
                                                                                               batch process
                                                                                               vents, except
                                                                                               that the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part;
                                                                                               and,
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
                                                                          (3) ASTM D6348-     (a) you must
                                                                           12e1.               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions at
                                                                                               the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device;
                                                                                              (b) you may use
                                                                                               ASTM D6348-12e1
                                                                                               as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method 320
                                                                                               only where the
                                                                                               following
                                                                                               conditions are
                                                                                               met: (1) The test
                                                                                               plan preparation
                                                                                               and
                                                                                               implementation in
                                                                                               the Annexes to
                                                                                               ASTM D 6348-03,
                                                                                               Sections A1
                                                                                               through A8 are
                                                                                               mandatory; and
                                                                                               (2) in ASTM D6348-
                                                                                               03 Annex A5
                                                                                               (Analyte Spiking
                                                                                               Technique), the
                                                                                               percent recovery
                                                                                               (%R) must be
                                                                                               determined for
                                                                                               each target
                                                                                               analyte (Equation
                                                                                               A5.5). In order
                                                                                               for the test data
                                                                                               to be acceptable
                                                                                               for a compound,
                                                                                               %R must be
                                                                                               greater than or
                                                                                               equal to 70
                                                                                               percent and less
                                                                                               than or equal to
                                                                                               130 percent. If
                                                                                               the %R value does
                                                                                               not meet this
                                                                                               criterion for a
                                                                                               target compound,
                                                                                               the test data are
                                                                                               not acceptable
                                                                                               for that compound
                                                                                               and the test must
                                                                                               be repeated for
                                                                                               that analyte
                                                                                               (i.e., the
                                                                                               sampling and/or
                                                                                               analytical
                                                                                               procedure should
                                                                                               be adjusted
                                                                                               before a retest).
                                                                                               The %R value for
                                                                                               each compound
                                                                                               must be reported
                                                                                               in the test
                                                                                               report, and all
                                                                                               field
                                                                                               measurements must
                                                                                               be corrected with
                                                                                               the calculated %R
                                                                                               value for that
                                                                                               compound by using
                                                                                               the following
                                                                                               equation:
                                                                                               Reported Results
                                                                                               = ((Measured
                                                                                               Concentration in
                                                                                               the Stack))/(%R)
                                                                                               x 100.
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents and
                                                                                               combinations of
                                                                                               batch and
                                                                                               continuous
                                                                                               solvent coating
                                                                                               process vents at
                                                                                               normal operating
                                                                                               conditions, as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5535;
                                                                                              (d) you must
                                                                                               conduct testing
                                                                                               of emissions from
                                                                                               batch solvent
                                                                                               coating process
                                                                                               vents as
                                                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.490(c),
                                                                                               except that the
                                                                                               emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under this
                                                                                               subpart supersede
                                                                                               the emission
                                                                                               reductions
                                                                                               required for
                                                                                               process vents
                                                                                               under subpart U
                                                                                               of this part; and
                                                                                              (e) you must
                                                                                               collect CPMS data
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CPMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
6. the sum of all process vents   a. each existing    i. measure visible  (1) EPA Method 22   (a) you must
 controlled using a flare.         or new affected     emissions.          in appendix A-7     conduct the flare
                                   source.                                 to part 60 of       visible emissions
                                                                           this chapter.       test according to
                                                                                               Sec.   63.11(b).
7. equipment leaks..............  a. each existing    i. measure leak     (1) applicable      (a) you must
                                   or new cellulose    rate.               equipment leak      follow all
                                   ether operation.                        test methods in     requirements for
                                                                           Sec.   63.180; or.  the applicable
                                                                                               equipment leak
                                                                                               test methods in
                                                                                               Sec.   63.180; or
                                                                          (2) applicable      (a) you must
                                                                           equipment leak      follow all
                                                                           test methods in     requirements for
                                                                           Sec.   63.1023.     the applicable
                                                                                               equipment leak
                                                                                               test methods in
                                                                                               Sec.   63.1023.

[[Page 47391]]

 
8. all sources of wastewater      a. each existing    i. measure          (1) applicable      (a) You must
 emissions.                        or new cellulose    wastewater HAP      wastewater test     follow all
                                   ether operation.    emissions.          methods and         requirements for
                                                                           procedures in       the applicable
                                                                           Sec.  Sec.          wastewater test
                                                                           63.144 and          methods and
                                                                           63.145; or.         procedures in
                                                                                               Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                               63.144 and
                                                                                               63.145; or
                                                                          (2) applicable      (a) you must
                                                                           wastewater test     follow all
                                                                           methods and         requirements for
                                                                           procedures in       the applicable
                                                                           Sec.  Sec.          waste water test
                                                                           63.144 and          methods and
                                                                           63.145, using       procedures in
                                                                           ASTM D5790-95       Sec.  Sec.
                                                                           (Reapproved 2012)   63.144 and
                                                                           as an alternative   63.145, except
                                                                           to EPA Method 624   that you may use
                                                                           in appendix A to    ASTM D5790-95
                                                                           part 163 of this    (Reapproved 2012)
                                                                           chapter..           as an alternative
                                                                                               to EPA Method
                                                                                               624, under the
                                                                                               condition that
                                                                                               this ASTM method
                                                                                               be used with the
                                                                                               sampling
                                                                                               procedures of EPA
                                                                                               Method 25D or an
                                                                                               equivalent
                                                                                               method.
9. any emission point...........  a. each existing    i. conduct a CEMS   (1) applicable      (a) you must
                                   or new affected     performance         requirements in     conduct the CEMS
                                   source using a      evaluation.         Sec.   63.8 and     performance
                                   CEMS to                                 applicable          evaluation during
                                   demonstrate                             performance         the period of the
                                   compliance.                             specification (PS-  initial
                                                                           7, PS-8, PS-9, or   compliance
                                                                           PS-15) in           demonstration
                                                                           appendix B to       according to the
                                                                           part 60 of this     applicable
                                                                           chapter.            requirements in
                                                                                               Sec.   63.8 and
                                                                                               the applicable
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               specification (PS-
                                                                                               7, PS-8, PS-9, or
                                                                                               PS-15) of 40 CFR
                                                                                               part 60, appendix
                                                                                               B;
                                                                                              (b) you must
                                                                                               install, operate,
                                                                                               and maintain the
                                                                                               CEMS according to
                                                                                               the applicable
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               specification (PS-
                                                                                               7, PS-8, PS-9, or
                                                                                               PS-15) of 40 CFR
                                                                                               part 60, appendix
                                                                                               B; and
                                                                                              (c) you must
                                                                                               collect CEMS
                                                                                               emissions data at
                                                                                               the inlet and
                                                                                               outlet of each
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               during the period
                                                                                               of the initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration and
                                                                                               determine the
                                                                                               CEMS operating
                                                                                               limit during the
                                                                                               period of the
                                                                                               initial
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
15. Table 5 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission 
Limits and Work Practice Standards

    As required in Sec.  63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work practice 
standards according to the requirements in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   for the following       you must demonstrate
              For . . .                        at . . .          emission limit or work   continuous compliance
                                                                practice standard . . .          by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the sum of all viscose process      a. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) maintaining a
 vents.                                 viscose process          uncontrolled sulfide     material balance that
                                        affected source.         emissions (reported as   includes the pertinent
                                                                 carbon disulfide) by     data used to determine
                                                                 at least the specified   the percent reduction
                                                                 percentage based on a    of total sulfide
                                                                 6-month rolling          emissions;
                                                                 average;.               (2) documenting the
                                                                ii. for each vent         percent reduction of
                                                                 stream that you          total sulfide
                                                                 control using a          emissions using the
                                                                 control device (except   pertinent data from
                                                                 for retractable hoods    the material balance;
                                                                 over sulfuric acid       and
                                                                 baths at a cellophane   (3) complying with the
                                                                 operation), route the    continuous compliance
                                                                 vent stream through a    requirements for
                                                                 closed-vent system to    closed-vent systems.
                                                                 the control device;
                                                                 and.
                                                                iii. comply with the
                                                                 work practice standard
                                                                 for closed-vent
                                                                 systems (except for
                                                                 retractable hoods over
                                                                 sulfuric acid baths at
                                                                 a cellophane
                                                                 operation).
2. the sum of all solvent coating      a. each existing or new  i. reduce uncontrolled   (1) maintaining a
 process vents.                         cellophane operation.    toluene emissions by     material balance that
                                                                 at least 95% based on    includes the pertinent
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        data used to determine
                                                                 average;.                the percent reduction
                                                                ii. for each vent         of toluene emissions;
                                                                 stream that you         (2) documenting the
                                                                 control using a          percent reduction of
                                                                 control device, route    toluene emissions
                                                                 the vent stream          using the pertinent
                                                                 through a closed-vent    data from the material
                                                                 system to the control    balance; and
                                                                 device; and.            (3) complying with the
                                                                iii. comply with the      continuous compliance
                                                                 work practice standard   requirements for
                                                                 for closed-vent          closed-vent systems.
                                                                 systems.
3. the sum of all cellulose ether      a. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) complying with the
 process vents.                         cellulose ether          uncontrolled organic     continuous compliance
                                        operation using a        HAP emissions by at      requirements for
                                        performance test to      least 99%;.              closed-vent systems;
                                        demonstrate initial     ii. for each vent         or
                                        compliance; or.          stream that you         (2) if using extended
                                                                 control using a          cookout to comply,
                                                                 control device, route    monitoring reactor
                                                                 the vent stream          charges and keeping
                                                                 through a closed-vent    records to show that
                                                                 system to the control    extended cookout was
                                                                 device; and,.            employed.
                                                                iii. comply with the
                                                                 work practice standard
                                                                 for closed-vent
                                                                 systems; or.

[[Page 47392]]

 
                                       b. each existing or new  i. reduce total          (1) maintaining a
                                        cellulose ether          uncontrolled organic     material balance that
                                        operation using a        HAP emissions by at      includes the pertinent
                                        material balance         least 99% based on a 6-  data used to determine
                                        compliance               month rolling average;.  the percent reduction
                                        demonstration to        ii. for each vent         of total organic HAP
                                        demonstrate initial      stream that you          emissions;
                                        compliance.              control using a         (2) documenting the
                                                                 control device, route    percent reduction of
                                                                 the vent stream          total organic HAP
                                                                 through a closed-vent    emissions using the
                                                                 system to control        pertinent data from
                                                                 device; and.             the material balance;
                                                                iii. comply with the     (3) if using extended
                                                                 work practice standard   cookout to comply,
                                                                 for closed-vent          monitoring reactor
                                                                 systems.                 charges and keeping
                                                                                          records to show that
                                                                                          extended cookout was
                                                                                          employed;
                                                                                         (4) complying with the
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
4. closed-loop systems...............  each existing or new     operate and maintain a   keeping a record
                                        cellulose either         closed-loop system.      certifying that a
                                        operation.                                        closed-loop system is
                                                                                          in use for cellulose
                                                                                          ether operations.
5. each carbon disulfide unloading     a. each existing or new  i. reduce uncontrolled   (1) keeping a record
 and storage operation.                 viscose process          carbon disulfide         documenting the 83%
                                        affected source.         emissions by at least    reduction in carbon
                                                                 83% based on a 6-month   disulfide emissions;
                                                                 rolling average if you   and (2) if venting to
                                                                 use an alternative       a control device to
                                                                 control technique not    reduce emissions,
                                                                 listed in this table     complying with the
                                                                 for carbon disulfide     continuous compliance
                                                                 unloading and storage    requirements for
                                                                 operations; if using a   closed-vent systems;
                                                                 control device to
                                                                 reduce emissions,
                                                                 route emissions
                                                                 through a closed-vent
                                                                 system to the control
                                                                 device; and comply
                                                                 with the work practice
                                                                 standard for closed-
                                                                 vent systems;.
                                                                ii. reduce total         (1) maintaining a
                                                                 uncontrolled sulfide     material balance that
                                                                 emissions by at least    includes the pertinent
                                                                 0.14% from viscose       data used to determine
                                                                 process vents based on   the percent reduction
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        of total sulfide
                                                                 average; for each vent   emissions;
                                                                 stream that you         (2) documenting the
                                                                 control using a          percent reduction of
                                                                 control device, route    total sulfide
                                                                 the vent stream          emissions using the
                                                                 through a closed-vent    pertinent data from
                                                                 system to the control    the material balance;
                                                                 device; and comply       and
                                                                 with the work practice  (3) complying with the
                                                                 standard for closed-     continuous compliance
                                                                 vent systems;.           requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems;
                                                                iii. install a nitrogen  Keeping a record
                                                                 unloading and storage    certifying that a
                                                                 system; or.              nitrogen unloading and
                                                                                          storage system is in
                                                                                          use; or
                                                                iv. install a nitrogen   (1) keeping a record
                                                                 unloading system;        certifying that a
                                                                 reduce total             nitrogen unloading
                                                                 uncontrolled sulfide     system is in use;
                                                                 emissions by at least   (2) maintaining a
                                                                 0.045% from viscose      material balance that
                                                                 process vents based on   includes the pertinent
                                                                 a 6-month rolling        data used to determine
                                                                 average; for each vent   the percent reduction
                                                                 stream that you          of total sulfide
                                                                 control using a          emissions;
                                                                 control device, route   (3) documenting the
                                                                 the vent stream          percent reduction of
                                                                 through a closed-vent    total sulfide
                                                                 system to the control    emissions using the
                                                                 device; and comply       pertinent data from
                                                                 with the work practice   the material balance;
                                                                 standard for closed-     and
                                                                 vent systems.           (4) complying with the
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
6. each toluene storage vessel.......  a. each existing or new  a. each existing or new  (1) maintaining a
                                        cellophane operation.    cellophane operation.    material balance that
                                                                                          includes the pertinent
                                                                                          data used to determine
                                                                                          the percent reduction
                                                                                          of toluene emissions;
                                                                                         (2) documenting the
                                                                                          percent reduction of
                                                                                          toluene emissions
                                                                                          using the pertinent
                                                                                          data from the material
                                                                                          balance; and
                                                                                         (3) if venting to a
                                                                                          control device to
                                                                                          reduce emissions,
                                                                                          complying with the
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          closed-vent systems.
7. equipment leaks...................  a. each existing or new  i. applicable equipment  complying with the
                                        cellulose ether          leak standards of Sec.   applicable equipment
                                        operation.                Sec.   63.162 through   leak continuous
                                                                 63.179; or.              compliance provisions
                                                                ii. applicable            of Sec.  Sec.   63.162
                                                                 equipment leak           through 63.179; or
                                                                 standards of Sec.       complying with the
                                                                 Sec.   63.1021 through   applicable equipment
                                                                 63.1037.                 leak continuous
                                                                                          compliance provisions
                                                                                          of Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                          63.1021 through
                                                                                          63.1037.
8. all sources of wastewater           each existing or new     applicable wastewater    complying with the
 emissions.                             cellulose either         provisions of Sec.       applicable wastewater
                                        operation.               63.105 and Sec.  Sec.    continuous compliance
                                                                  63.132 through          provisions of Sec.
                                                                 63.140..                 Sec.   63.105, 63.143,
                                                                                          and 63.148.
9. liquid streams in open systems....  each existing or new     comply with the          conducting inspections,
                                        cellulose ether          applicable provisions    repairing failures,
                                        operation.               of Sec.   63.149,        documenting delay of
                                                                 except that references   repair, and
                                                                 to ``chemical            maintaining records of
                                                                 manufacturing process    failures and
                                                                 unit'' mean              corrective actions
                                                                 ``cellulose ether        according to Sec.
                                                                 process unit'' for the   Sec.   63.133 through
                                                                 purposes of this         63.137.
                                                                 subpart.

[[Page 47393]]

 
10. closed-vent system used to route   each existing or new     conduct annual           conducting the
 emissions to a control device.         affected source.         inspections, repair      inspections, repairing
                                                                 leaks, maintain          leaks, and maintaining
                                                                 records as specified     records according to
                                                                 in Sec.   63.148.        Sec.   63.148.
11. closed-vent system containing a    a. each existing or new  i. install, calibrate,   (1) taking readings
 bypass line that could divert a vent   affected source.         maintain, and operate    from the flow
 stream away from a control device,                              a flow indicator as      indicator at least
 except for equipment needed for                                 specified in Sec.        once every 15 minutes;
 safety purposes (described in Sec.                              63.148(f)(1); or.       (2) maintaining hourly
 63.148(f)(3).                                                                            records of flow
                                                                                          indicator operation
                                                                                          and detection of any
                                                                                          diversion during the
                                                                                          hour, and
                                                                                         (3) recording all
                                                                                          periods when the vent
                                                                                          stream is diverted
                                                                                          from the control
                                                                                          stream or the flow
                                                                                          indicator is not
                                                                                          operating; or
                                       .......................  ii. secure the bypass    (1) maintaining a
                                                                 line valve in the        record of the monthly
                                                                 closed position with a   visual inspection of
                                                                 car-seal or lock-and-    the seal or closure
                                                                 key type configuration   mechanism for the
                                                                 and inspect the seal     bypass line; and
                                                                 or mechanism at least   (2) recording all
                                                                 once per month as        periods when the seal
                                                                 specified in Sec.        mechanism is broken,
                                                                 63.148(f)(2)..           the bypass line valve
                                                                                          position has changed,
                                                                                          or the key for a lock-
                                                                                          and-key type lock has
                                                                                          been checked out.
12. heat exchanger system that cools   a. each existing or new  i. monitor and repair    (1) monitoring for HAP
 process equipment or materials in      affected source.         the heat exchanger       compounds, other
 the process unit.                                               system according to      substances, or
                                                                 Sec.   63.104(a)         surrogate indicators
                                                                 through (e), except      at the frequency
                                                                 that references to       specified in Sec.
                                                                 ``chemical               63.104(b) or (c);
                                                                 manufacturing process   (2) repairing leaks
                                                                 unit'' mean              within the time period
                                                                 ``cellulose food         specified in Sec.
                                                                 casing, rayon,           63.104(d)(1);
                                                                 cellulosic sponge,      (3) confirming that the
                                                                 cellophane, or           repair is successful
                                                                 cellulose ether          as specified in Sec.
                                                                 process unit'' for the   63.104(d)(2);
                                                                 purposes of this        (4) following the
                                                                 subpart.                 procedures in Sec.
                                                                                          63.104(e) if you
                                                                                          implement delay of
                                                                                          repair; and
                                                                                         (5) recording the
                                                                                          results of inspections
                                                                                          and repair according
                                                                                          to Sec.
                                                                                          63.104(f)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
16. Table 6 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With 
Operating Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.5555(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the appropriate operating limits according to the 
requirements in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    you must demonstrate
  For the following control     for the following        continuous
       technique . . .         operating limit . .   compliance by . . .
                                        .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser................  maintain the daily    collecting the
                               average condenser     condenser outlet
                               outlet gas or         gas or condensed
                               condensed liquid      liquid temperature
                               temperature no        data according to
                               higher than the       Sec.   63.5545;
                               value established     reducing the
                               during the            condenser outlet
                               compliance            gas temperature
                               demonstration.        data to daily
                                                     averages; and
                                                     maintaining the
                                                     daily average
                                                     condenser outlet
                                                     gas or condensed
                                                     liquid temperature
                                                     no higher than the
                                                     value established
                                                     during the
                                                     compliance
                                                     demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer.........  a. for normal         collecting the
                               operations,           thermal oxidizer
                               maintain the daily    firebox temperature
                               average thermal       data according to
                               oxidizer firebox      Sec.   63.5545;
                               temperature no        reducing the
                               lower than the        thermal oxidizer
                               value established     firebox temperature
                               during the            data to daily
                               compliance            averages; and
                               demonstration.        maintaining the
                                                     daily average
                                                     thermal oxidizer
                                                     firebox temperature
                                                     no lower than the
                                                     value established
                                                     during the
                                                     compliance
                                                     demonstration.
                              b. for periods of     collecting the
                               startup, maintain     appropriate, site-
                               documentation         specific data
                               demonstrating that    needed to
                               the oxidizer was      demonstrate that
                               properly operating    the oxidizer was
                               (e.g., firebox        properly operating
                               temperature had       prior to emission
                               reached the           unit start up; and
                               setpoint              excluding firebox
                               temperature) prior    temperature from
                               to emission unit      the daily averages
                               startup.              during emission
                                                     unit startup.
3. water scrubber...........  a. for normal         collecting the
                               operations,           scrubber pressure
                               maintain the daily    drop and scrubber
                               average scrubber      liquid flow rate
                               pressure drop and     data according to
                               scrubber liquid       Sec.   63.5545;
                               flow rate within      reducing the
                               the range of values   scrubber parameter
                               established during    data to daily
                               the compliance        averages; and
                               demonstration.        maintaining the
                                                     daily scrubber
                                                     parameter values
                                                     within the range of
                                                     values established
                                                     during the
                                                     compliance
                                                     demonstration.

[[Page 47394]]

 
                              b. for periods of     collecting the
                               startup and           appropriate, site-
                               shutdown, maintain    specific data
                               documentation to      needed to
                               confirm that the      demonstrate that
                               scrubber is           the scrubber was
                               operating properly    operating properly
                               prior to emission     during emission
                               unit startup and      unit startup and
                               continues to          emission unit
                               operate properly      shutdown; and
                               until emission unit   excluding
                               shutdown is           parameters from the
                               complete.             daily average
                               Appropriate startup   calculations.
                               and shutdown
                               operating
                               parameters may be
                               based on equipment
                               design,
                               manufacturer's
                               recommendations, or
                               other site-specific
                               operating values
                               established for
                               normal operating
                               periods.
4. caustic scrubber.........  a. for normal         collecting the
                               operations,           scrubber pressure
                               maintain the daily    drop, scrubber
                               average scrubber      liquid flow rate,
                               pressure drop,        and scrubber liquid
                               scrubber liquid       pH, conductivity,
                               flow rate, and        or alkalinity data
                               scrubber liquid pH,   according to Sec.
                               conductivity, or      63.5545; reducing
                               alkalinity within     the scrubber
                               the range of values   parameter data to
                               established during    daily averages; and
                               the compliance        maintaining the
                               demonstration.        daily scrubber
                                                     parameter values
                                                     within the range of
                                                     values established
                                                     during the
                                                     compliance
                                                     demonstration.
                              b. for periods of     collecting the
                               startup and           appropriate, site-
                               shutdown, maintain    specific data
                               documentation to      needed to
                               confirm that the      demonstrate that
                               scrubber is           the scrubber was
                               operating properly    operating properly
                               prior to emission     during emission
                               unit startup and      unit startup and
                               continues to          emission unit
                               operate properly      shutdown; and
                               until emission unit   excluding
                               shutdown is           parameters from the
                               complete.             daily average
                               Appropriate startup   calculations.
                               and shutdown
                               operating
                               parameters may be
                               based on equipment
                               design,
                               manufacturer's
                               recommendations, or
                               other site-specific
                               operating values
                               established for
                               normal operating
                               periods.
5. flare....................  maintain the          collecting the pilot
                               presence of a pilot   flame data
                               flame.                according to Sec.
                                                     63.5545; and
                                                     maintaining the
                                                     presence of the
                                                     pilot flame.
6. biofilter................  maintain the daily    collecting the
                               average biofilter     biofilter inlet gas
                               inlet gas             temperature,
                               temperature,          biofilter effluent
                               biofilter effluent    pH or conductivity,
                               pH or conductivity,   and biofilter
                               and pressure drop     pressure drop data
                               within the values     according to Sec.
                               established during    63.5545; reducing
                               the compliance        the biofilter
                               demonstration.        parameter data to
                                                     daily averages; and
                                                     maintaining the
                                                     daily biofilter
                                                     parameter values
                                                     within the values
                                                     established during
                                                     the compliance
                                                     demonstration.
7. carbon absorber..........  maintain the          collecting the data
                               regeneration          on regeneration
                               frequency, total      frequency, total
                               regeneration stream   regeneration stream
                               mass or volumetric    mass or volumetric
                               flow during carbon    flow during carbon
                               bed regeneration      bed regeneration
                               and temperature of    and temperature of
                               the carbon bed        the carbon bed
                               after regeneration    after regeneration
                               (and within 15        (and within 15
                               minutes of            minutes of
                               completing any        completing any
                               cooling cycle(s))     cooling cycle(s))
                               for each              for each
                               regeneration cycle    regeneration cycle
                               within the values     according to Sec.
                               established during    63.5545; and
                               the compliance        maintaining carbon
                               demonstration.        absorber parameter
                                                     values for each
                                                     regeneration cycle
                                                     within the values
                                                     established during
                                                     the compliance
                                                     demonstration.
8. oil absorber.............  maintain the daily    collecting the
                               average absorption    absorption liquid
                               liquid flow,          flow, absorption
                               absorption liquid     liquid temperature,
                               temperature, and      and steam flow data
                               steam flow within     according to Sec.
                               the values            63.5545; reducing
                               established during    the oil absorber
                               the compliance        parameter data to
                               demonstration.        daily averages; and
                                                     maintaining the
                                                     daily oil absorber
                                                     parameter values
                                                     within the values
                                                     established during
                                                     the compliance
                                                     demonstration.
9. any of the control         if using a CEMS,      collecting CEMS
 techniques specified in       maintain the daily    emissions data at
 this table.                   average control       the inlet and
                               efficiency for each   outlet of each
                               control device no     control device
                               lower than the        according to Sec.
                               value established     63.5545;
                               during the            determining the
                               compliance            control efficiency
                               demonstration.        values for each
                                                     control device
                                                     using the inlet and
                                                     outlet CEMS
                                                     emissions data;
                                                     reducing the
                                                     control efficiency
                                                     values for each
                                                     control device to
                                                     daily averages; and
                                                     maintaining the
                                                     daily average
                                                     control efficiency
                                                     for each control
                                                     device no lower
                                                     than the value
                                                     established during
                                                     the compliance
                                                     demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
17. Table 7 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 7 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Notifications

    As required in Sec. Sec.  63.5490(c)(4), 63.5530(c), 63.5575, and 
63.5595(b), you must submit the appropriate notifications specified in 
the following table:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              If you . . .                     then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. are required to conduct a             submit a notification of intent
 performance test.                        to conduct a performance test
                                          at least 60 calendar days
                                          before the performance test is
                                          scheduled to begin, as
                                          specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                          63.7(b)(1) and 63.9(e).

[[Page 47395]]

 
2. are required to conduct a CMS         submit a notification of intent
 performance evaluation.                  to conduct a CMS performance
                                          evaluation at least 60
                                          calendar days before the CMS
                                          performance evaluation is
                                          scheduled to begin, as
                                          specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                          63.8(e)(2) and 63.9(g).
3. wish to use an alternative            submit a request to use
 monitoring method.                       alternative monitoring method
                                          no later than the notification
                                          of the initial performance
                                          test or CMS performance
                                          evaluation or 60 days prior to
                                          any other initial compliance
                                          demonstration, as specified in
                                          Sec.   63.8(f)(4).
4. start up your affected source before  submit an initial notification
 June 11, 2002.                           no later than 120 days after
                                          June 11, 2002, as specified in
                                          Sec.   63.9(b)(2).
5. start up your new or reconstructed    submit an initial notification
 source on or after June 11, 2002.        no later than 120 days after
                                          you become subject to this
                                          subpart, as specified in Sec.
                                           63.9(b)(3).
6. cannot comply with the relevant       submit a request for extension
 standard by the applicable compliance    of compliance no later than
 date.                                    120 days before the compliance
                                          date, as specified in Sec.
                                          Sec.   63.9(c) and 63.6(i)(4).
7. are subject to special requirements   notify the Administrator of
 as specified in Sec.   63.6(b)(3) and    your compliance obligations no
 (4).                                     later than the initial
                                          notification dates established
                                          in Sec.   63.9(b) for new
                                          sources not subject to the
                                          special provisions, as
                                          specified in Sec.   63.9(d).
8. are required to conduct visible       notify the Administrator of the
 emission observations to determine the   anticipated date for
 compliance of flares as specified in     conducting the observations
 Sec.   63.11(b)(4).                      specified in Sec.
                                          63.6(h)(5), as specified in
                                          Sec.  Sec.   63.6(h)(4) and
                                          63.9(f).
9. are required to conduct a             a. submit a Notification of
 performance test or other initial        Compliance Status Report, as
 compliance demonstration as specified    specified in Sec.   63.9(h);
 in Table 3 to this subpart.             b. submit the Notification of
                                          Compliance Status Report,
                                          including the performance
                                          test, CEMS performance
                                          evaluation, and any other
                                          initial compliance
                                          demonstration results within
                                          240 calendar days following
                                          the compliance date specified
                                          in Sec.   63.5495; and
                                         c. beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS
                                          AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
                                          FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                          REGISTER], submit all
                                          subsequent Notifications of
                                          Compliance Status following
                                          the procedure specified in
                                          Sec.   63.5580(g), (j), and
                                          (k).
10. comply with the equipment leak       comply with the notification
 requirements of subpart H of this part   requirements specified in Sec.
 for existing or new cellulose ether        63.182(a)(1) and (2), (b),
 affected sources.                        and (c)(1) through (3) for
                                          equipment leaks, with the
                                          Notification of Compliance
                                          Status Reports required in
                                          subpart H included in the
                                          Notification of Compliance
                                          Status Report required in this
                                          subpart.
11. comply with the equipment leak       comply with the notification
 requirements of subpart UU of this       requirements specified in Sec.
 part for existing or new cellulose         63.1039(a) for equipment
 ether affected sources.                  leaks, with the Notification
                                          Compliance Status Reports
                                          required in subpart UU of this
                                          part included in the
                                          Notification of Compliance
                                          Status Report required in this
                                          subpart.
12. comply with the wastewater           comply with the notification
 requirements of subparts F and G of      requirements specified in Sec.
 this part for existing or new             Sec.   63.146(a) and (b),
 cellulose ether affected sources.        63.151, and 63.152(a)(1)
                                          through (3) and (b)(1) through
                                          (5) for wastewater, with the
                                          Notification of Compliance
                                          Status Reports required in
                                          subpart G of this part
                                          included in the Notification
                                          of Compliance Status Report
                                          required in this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
18. Table 8 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Reporting Requirements

    As required in Sec.  63.5580, you must submit the appropriate 
reports specified in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit a compliance report, which
must contain the following information . .     and you must submit the
                     .                              report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. if there are no deviations from any      semiannually as specified in
 emission limit, operating limit, or work    Sec.   63.5580(b);
 practice standard during the reporting      beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS
 period, then the report must contain the    AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
 information specified in Sec.               RULE IN THE FEDERAL
 63.5580(c);.                                REGISTER], submit all
                                             subsequent reports
                                             following the procedure
                                             specified in Sec.
                                             63.5580(g).
2. if there were no periods during which
 the CMS was out-of-control, then the
 report must contain the information
 specified in Sec.   63.5580(c)(6);.
3. if there is a deviation from any
 emission limit, operating limit, or work
 practice standard during the reporting
 period, then the report must contain the
 information specified in Sec.
 63.5580(c) and (d);.
4. if there were periods during which the
 CMS was out-of-control, then the report
 must contain the information specified in
 Sec.   63.5580(e);.
5. if prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
 PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
 Register], you had a startup, shutdown,
 or malfunction during the reporting
 period and you took actions consistent
 with your SSM plan, then the report must
 contain the information specified in Sec.
   63.10(d)(5)(i);.

[[Page 47396]]

 
6. if prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
 PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
 REGISTER], you had a startup, shutdown,
 or malfunction during the reporting
 period and you took actions that are not
 consistent with your SSM plan, then the
 report must contain the information
 specified in Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii);.
7. the report must contain any change in
 information already provided, as
 specified in Sec.   63.9(j);.
8. for cellulose ether affected sources
 complying with the equipment leak
 requirements of subpart H of this part,
 the report must contain the information
 specified in Sec.   63.182(a)(3) and (6)
 and (d)(2) through (4);.
9. for cellulose ether affected sources
 complying with the equipment leak
 requirements of subpart UU of this part,
 the report must contain the information
 specified in Sec.   63.1039(b);.
10. for cellulose ether affected sources
 complying with the wastewater
 requirements of subparts F and G of this
 part, the report must contain the
 information specified in Sec.  Sec.
 63.146(c) through (e) and 63.152(a)(4)
 and (5) and (c) through (e);.
11. for affected sources complying with
 the closed-vent system provisions in Sec.
   63.148, the report must contain the
 information specified in Sec.
 63.148(j)(1);.
12. for affected sources complying with
 the bypass line provisions in Sec.
 63.148(f), the report must contain the
 information specified in Sec.
 63.148(j)(2) and (3);.
13. for affected sources invoking the
 delay of repair provisions in Sec.
 63.104(e) for heat exchanger systems, the
 next compliance report must contain the
 information in Sec.   63.104(f)(2)(i)
 through (iv); if the leak remains
 unrepaired, the information must also be
 submitted in each subsequent compliance
 report until the repair of the leak is
 reported; and.
14. for storage vessels subject to the
 emission limits and work practice
 standards in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU, the
 report must contain the periods of
 planned routine maintenance during which
 the control device does not comply with
 the emission limits or work practice
 standards in Table 1 to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
19. Table 9 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 9 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Recordkeeping Requirements

    As required in Sec.  63.5585, you must keep the appropriate records 
specified in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  then you must keep   and the record(s)
      If you operate . . .               . . .        must contain . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. an existing or new affected    a copy of each      all documentation
 source.                           notification and    supporting any
                                   report that you     Initial
                                   submitted to        Notification or
                                   comply with this    Notification of
                                   subpart.            Compliance Status
                                                       Report that you
                                                       submitted,
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.10(b)(2)(xiv),
                                                       and any
                                                       compliance report
                                                       required under
                                                       this subpart.
2. an existing or new affected    a. the records in   i. SSM plan;
 source that commenced             Sec.               ii. when actions
 construction or reconstruction    63.6(e)(3)(iii)     taken during a
 before September 9, 2019.         through (iv)        startup,
                                   related to          shutdown, or
                                   startup,            malfunction are
                                   shutdown, and       consistent with
                                   malfunction prior   the procedures
                                   to [DATE 180 DAYS   specified in the
                                   AFTER DATE OF       SSM plan, records
                                   PUBLICATION OF      demonstrating
                                   FINAL RULE IN THE   that the
                                   FEDERAL REGISTER].  procedures
                                                       specified in the
                                                       plan were
                                                       followed;
                                                      iii. records of
                                                       the occurrence
                                                       and duration of
                                                       each startup,
                                                       shutdown, or
                                                       malfunction; and
                                                      iv. when actions
                                                       taken during a
                                                       startup,
                                                       shutdown, or
                                                       malfunction are
                                                       not consistent
                                                       with the
                                                       procedures
                                                       specified in the
                                                       SSM plan, records
                                                       of the actions
                                                       taken for that
                                                       event.

[[Page 47397]]

 
                                  b. records related  i. record the
                                   to startup and      date, time, and
                                   shutdown,           duration of each
                                   failures to meet    startup and/or
                                   the standard, and   shutdown period,
                                   actions taken to    including the
                                   minimize            periods when the
                                   emissions after     affected source
                                   [DATE 180 DAYS      was subject to
                                   AFTER DATE OF       the alternative
                                   PUBLICATION OF      operating
                                   FINAL RULE IN THE   parameters
                                   FEDERAL REGISTER].  applicable to
                                                       startup and
                                                       shutdown;
                                                      ii. in the event
                                                       that an affected
                                                       unit fails to
                                                       meet an
                                                       applicable
                                                       standard, record
                                                       the number of
                                                       failures. For
                                                       each failure,
                                                       record the date,
                                                       time and duration
                                                       of each failure;
                                                      iii. for each
                                                       failure to meet
                                                       an applicable
                                                       standard, record
                                                       and retain a list
                                                       of the affected
                                                       sources or
                                                       equipment, an
                                                       estimate of the
                                                       quantity of each
                                                       regulated
                                                       pollutant emitted
                                                       over any emission
                                                       limit and a
                                                       description of
                                                       the method used
                                                       to estimate the
                                                       emissions; and
                                                      iv. record actions
                                                       taken to minimize
                                                       emissions in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.5515(b), and
                                                       any corrective
                                                       actions taken to
                                                       return the
                                                       affected unit to
                                                       its normal or
                                                       usual manner of
                                                       operation.
3. a new or reconstructed         a. records related  i. record the
 affected source that commenced    to startup and      date, time, and
 construction or reconstruction    shutdown,           duration of each
 after September 9, 2019.          failures to meet    startup and/or
                                   the standard, and   shutdown period,
                                   actions taken to    including the
                                   minimize            periods when the
                                   emissions.          affected source
                                                       was subject to
                                                       alternative
                                                       operating
                                                       parameters
                                                       applicable to
                                                       startup and
                                                       shutdown;
                                                      ii. in the event
                                                       that an affected
                                                       unit fails to
                                                       meet an
                                                       applicable
                                                       standard, record
                                                       the number of
                                                       failures. For
                                                       each failure,
                                                       record the date,
                                                       time and duration
                                                       of each failure;
                                                      iii. for each
                                                       failure to meet
                                                       an applicable
                                                       standard, record
                                                       and retain a list
                                                       of the affected
                                                       sources or
                                                       equipment, an
                                                       estimate of the
                                                       quantity of each
                                                       regulated
                                                       pollutant emitted
                                                       over any emission
                                                       limit and a
                                                       description of
                                                       the method used
                                                       to estimate the
                                                       emissions; and
                                                      iv. record actions
                                                       taken to minimize
                                                       emissions in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.5515(b), and
                                                       any corrective
                                                       actions taken to
                                                       return the
                                                       affected unit to
                                                       its normal or
                                                       usual manner of
                                                       operation.
4. an existing or new affected    a. a site-specific  i. information
 source.                           monitoring plan.    regarding the
                                                       installation of
                                                       the CMS sampling
                                                       source probe or
                                                       other interface
                                                       at a measurement
                                                       location relative
                                                       to each affected
                                                       process unit such
                                                       that the
                                                       measurement is
                                                       representative of
                                                       control of the
                                                       exhaust emissions
                                                       (e.g., on or
                                                       downstream of the
                                                       last control
                                                       device);
                                                      ii. performance
                                                       and equipment
                                                       specifications
                                                       for the sample
                                                       interface, the
                                                       pollutant
                                                       concentration or
                                                       parametric signal
                                                       analyzer, and the
                                                       data collection
                                                       and reduction
                                                       system;
                                                      iii. performance
                                                       evaluation
                                                       procedures and
                                                       acceptance
                                                       criteria (e.g.,
                                                       calibrations);
                                                      iv. ongoing
                                                       operation and
                                                       maintenance
                                                       procedures in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the general
                                                       requirements of
                                                       Sec.  Sec.
                                                       63.8(c)(3) and
                                                       (4)(ii),
                                                       63.5515(b), and
                                                       63.5580(c)(6);
                                                      v. ongoing data
                                                       quality assurance
                                                       procedures in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the general
                                                       requirements of
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.8(d)(2); and
                                                      vi. ongoing
                                                       recordkeeping and
                                                       reporting
                                                       procedures in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the general
                                                       requirements of
                                                       Sec.  Sec.
                                                       63.10(c)(1)-(6),
                                                       (c)(9)-(14),
                                                       (e)(1), and
                                                       (e)(2)(i) and
                                                       63.5585.
5. an existing or new affected    records of          all results of
 source.                           performance tests   performance
                                   and CEMS            tests, CEMS
                                   performance         performance
                                   evaluations, as     evaluations, and
                                   required in Sec.    any other initial
                                    63.10(b)(2)(viii   compliance
                                   ) and any other     demonstrations,
                                   initial             including
                                   compliance          analysis of
                                   demonstrations.     samples,
                                                       determination of
                                                       emissions, and
                                                       raw data.

[[Page 47398]]

 
6. an existing or new affected    a. records for      i. records
 source.                           each CEMS.          described in Sec.
                                                         63.10(b)(2)(vi)
                                                       through (xi);
                                                      ii. previous
                                                       (superseded)
                                                       versions of the
                                                       performance
                                                       evaluation plan,
                                                       with the program
                                                       of corrective
                                                       action included
                                                       in the plan
                                                       required under
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.8(d)(2);
                                                      iii. request for
                                                       alternatives to
                                                       relative accuracy
                                                       test for CEMS as
                                                       required in Sec.
                                                        63.8(f)(6)(i);
                                                      iv. records of the
                                                       date and time
                                                       that each
                                                       deviation started
                                                       and stopped, and
                                                       whether the
                                                       deviation
                                                       occurred during a
                                                       period of
                                                       startup,
                                                       shutdown, or
                                                       malfunction or
                                                       during another
                                                       period; and
                                                      v. records
                                                       required in Table
                                                       6 to Subpart UUUU
                                                       to show
                                                       continuous
                                                       compliance with
                                                       the operating
                                                       limit.
7. an existing or new affected    a. records for      i. records
 source.                           each CPMS.          required in Table
                                                       6 to Subpart UUUU
                                                       to show
                                                       continuous
                                                       compliance with
                                                       each operating
                                                       limit that
                                                       applies to you;
                                                       and
                                                      ii. results of
                                                       each CPMS
                                                       calibration,
                                                       validation check,
                                                       and inspection
                                                       required by Sec.
                                                        63.5545(b)(4).
8. an existing or new cellulose   records of closed-  records certifying
 ether affected ether source.      loop systems.       that a closed-
                                                       loop system is in
                                                       use for cellulose
                                                       ether operations.
9. an existing or new viscose     records of          records of
 process affected source.          nitrogen            nitrogen
                                   unloading and       unloading and
                                   storage systems     storage systems
                                   or nitrogen         or nitrogen
                                   unloading systems.  unloading systems
10. an existing or new viscose    records of          all pertinent data
 process affected source.          material balances.  from the material
                                                       balances used to
                                                       estimate the 6-
                                                       month rolling
                                                       average percent
                                                       reduction in HAP
                                                       emissions.
11. an existing or new viscose    records of          documenting the
 process affected source.          calculations.       percent reduction
                                                       in HAP emissions
                                                       using pertinent
                                                       data from the
                                                       material
                                                       balances.
12. an existing or new cellulose  a. extended         i. the amount of
 ether affected source.            cookout records.    HAP charged to
                                                       the reactor;
                                                      ii. the grade of
                                                       product produced;
                                                      iii. the
                                                       calculated amount
                                                       of HAP remaining
                                                       before extended
                                                       cookout; and
                                                      iv. information
                                                       showing that
                                                       extended cookout
                                                       was employed.
13. an existing or new cellulose  a. equipment leak   i. the records
 ether affected source.            records.            specified in Sec.
                                                         63.181 for
                                                       equipment leaks;
                                                       or
                                                      ii. the records
                                                       specified in
                                                       63.1038 for
                                                       equipment leaks.
14. an existing or new cellulose  wastewater records  the records
 ether affected source.                                specified in Sec.
                                                        Sec.   63.105,
                                                       63.147, and
                                                       63.152(f) and (g)
                                                       for wastewater.
15. an existing or new affected   closed-vent system  the records
 source.                           records.            specified in Sec.
                                                         63.148(i).
16. an existing or new affected   a. bypass line      i. hourly records
 source.                           records.            of flow indicator
                                                       operation and
                                                       detection of any
                                                       diversion during
                                                       the hour and
                                                       records of all
                                                       periods when the
                                                       vent stream is
                                                       diverted from the
                                                       control stream or
                                                       the flow
                                                       indicator is not
                                                       operating; or
                                                      ii. the records of
                                                       the monthly
                                                       visual inspection
                                                       of the seal or
                                                       closure mechanism
                                                       and of all
                                                       periods when the
                                                       seal mechanism is
                                                       broken, the
                                                       bypass line valve
                                                       position has
                                                       changed, or the
                                                       key for a lock-
                                                       and-key type lock
                                                       has been checked
                                                       out and records
                                                       of any car-seal
                                                       that has broken.
17. an existing or new affected   heat exchanger      records of the
 source.                           system records.     results of
                                                       inspections and
                                                       repair according
                                                       to source Sec.
                                                       63.104(f)(1).
18. an existing or new affected   control device      records of planned
 source.                           maintenance         routine
                                   records.            maintenance for
                                                       control devices
                                                       used to comply
                                                       with the percent
                                                       reduction
                                                       emission limit
                                                       for storage
                                                       vessels in Table
                                                       1 to Subpart
                                                       UUUU.
19. an existing or new affected   safety device       a record of each
 source.                           records.            time a safety
                                                       device is opened
                                                       to avoid unsafe
                                                       conditions
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.5505(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47399]]

0
20. Table 10 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart UUUU

    As required in Sec. Sec.  63.5515(h) and 63.5600, you must comply 
with the appropriate General Provisions requirements specified in the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                      Subject              Brief description       Applies to  subpart UUUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.......................  Applicability........  Initial applicability       Yes.
                                                            determination;
                                                            applicability after
                                                            standard established;
                                                            permit requirements;
                                                            extensions, notifications.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions..........  Definitions for part 63     Yes
                                                            standards.
Sec.   63.3.......................  Units and              Units and abbreviations     Yes.
                                     Abbreviations.         for part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited Activities  Prohibited activities;      Yes.
                                     and Circumvention.     compliance date;
                                                            circumvention,
                                                            severability.
Sec.   63.5.......................  Preconstruction        Preconstruction review      Yes.
                                     Review and             requirements of section
                                     Notification           112(i)(1).
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Applicability........  General provisions apply    Yes.
                                                            unless compliance
                                                            extension; general
                                                            provisions apply to area
                                                            sources that become major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (4).....  Compliance Dates for   Standards apply at          Yes.
                                     New and                effective date; 3 years
                                     Reconstructed          after effective date;
                                     sources.               upon startup; 10 years
                                                            after construction or
                                                            reconstruction commences
                                                            for CAA section 112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).................  Notification.........  Must notify if commenced    Yes.
                                                            construction or
                                                            reconstruction after
                                                            proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).................  [Reserved]...........
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).................  Compliance Dates for   Area sources that become    Yes.
                                     New and                major must comply with
                                     Reconstructed Area     major source and
                                     Sources That Become    standards immediately
                                     Major.                 upon becoming major,
                                                            regardless of whether
                                                            required to comply when
                                                            they were an area source.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1) and (2).........  Compliance Dates for   Comply according to date    Yes.
                                     Existing Sources.      in subpart, which must be
                                                            no later than 3 years
                                                            after effective date; for
                                                            CAA section 112(f)
                                                            standards, comply within
                                                            90 days of effective date
                                                            unless compliance
                                                            extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4).........  [Reserved]...........
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).................  Compliance Dates for   Area sources that become    Yes.
                                     Existing Area          major must comply with
                                     Sources That Become    major source standards by
                                     Major.                 date indicated in subpart
                                                            or by equivalent time
                                                            period (e.g., 3 years).
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  [Reserved]...........
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..............  General Duty to        You must operate and        No, for new or
                                     Minimize Emissions..   maintain affected source    reconstructed sources
                                                            in a manner consistent      which commenced
                                                            with safety and good air    construction or
                                                            pollution control           reconstruction after
                                                            practices for minimizing    September 9, 2019, see
                                                            emissions.                  Sec.   63.5515 for
                                                                                        general duty
                                                                                        requirement. Yes, for
                                                                                        all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).............  Requirement to         You must correct            No, for new or
                                     Correct Malfunctions   malfunctions as soon as     reconstructed sources
                                     ASAP.                  practicable after their     which commenced
                                                            occurrence.                 construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)............  Operation and          Operation and maintenance   Yes.
                                     Maintenance            requirements are
                                     Requirements.          enforceable independent
                                                            of emissions limitations
                                                            or other requirements in
                                                            relevant standards.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).................  [Reserved]...........

[[Page 47400]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  Startup, Shutdown,     Requirement for startup,    No, for new or
                                     and Malfunction Plan.  shutdown, and malfunction   reconstructed sources
                                                            and SSM plan; content of    which commenced
                                                            SSM plan.                   construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  SSM Exemption........  You must comply with        No, for new or
                                                            emission standards at all   reconstructed sources
                                                            times except during SSM.    which commenced
                                                                                        construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3).........  Methods for            Compliance based on         Yes.
                                     Determining            performance test,
                                     Compliance/Finding     operation and maintenance
                                     of Compliance.         plans, records,
                                                            inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1) through (3).....  Alternative Standard.  Procedures for getting an   Yes.
                                                            alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1).................  SSM Exemption........  You must comply with        No, for new or
                                                            opacity and visible         reconstructed sources
                                                            emission standards at all   which commenced
                                                            times except during SSM.    construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources utilizing flares
                                                                                        before [DATE 181 DAYS
                                                                                        AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(h)(2) through (9).....  Opacity and Visible    Requirements for opacity    Yes, but only for flares
                                     Emission (VE)          and visible emission        for which EPA Method 22
                                     Standards.             limits.                     observations are
                                                                                        required under Sec.
                                                                                        63.11(b).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1) through (16)....  Compliance Extension.  Procedures and criteria     Yes.
                                                            for Administrator to
                                                            grant compliance
                                                            extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Presidential           President may exempt        Yes.
                                     Compliance Exemption.  source category from
                                                            requirement to comply
                                                            with subpart.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1) and (2).........  Performance Test       Dates for conducting        Yes.
                                     Dates.                 initial performance test;
                                                            testing and other
                                                            compliance
                                                            demonstrations; must
                                                            conduct 180 days after
                                                            first subject to subpart.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).................  Section 114 Authority  Administrator may require   Yes.
                                                            a performance test under
                                                            CAA Section 114 at any
                                                            time.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).................  Notification of        Must notify Administrator   Yes.
                                     Performance Test.      60 days before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).................  Notification of        If rescheduling a           Yes.
                                     Rescheduling.          performance test is
                                                            necessary, must notify
                                                            Administrator 5 days
                                                            before scheduled date of
                                                            rescheduled test.
Sec.   63.7(c)....................  Quality Assurance and  Requirement to submit site- No.
                                     Test Plan.             specific test plan 60
                                                            days before the test or
                                                            on date Administrator
                                                            agrees with; test plan
                                                            approval procedures;
                                                            performance audit
                                                            requirements; internal
                                                            and external QA
                                                            procedures for testing.
Sec.   63.7(d)....................  Testing Facilities...  Requirements for testing    Yes.
                                                            facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).................  Performance Testing..  Performance tests must be   No, see Sec.   63.5535
                                                            conducted under             and Table 4.
                                                            representative
                                                            conditions; cannot
                                                            conduct performance tests
                                                            during SSM; not a
                                                            violation to exceed
                                                            standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).................  Conditions for         Must conduct according to   Yes.
                                     Conducting             this subpart and EPA test
                                     Performance Tests.     methods unless
                                                            Administrator approves
                                                            alternative.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).................  Test Run Duration....  Must have three test runs   Yes.
                                                            of at least 1 hour each;
                                                            compliance is based on
                                                            arithmetic mean of three
                                                            runs; conditions when
                                                            data from an additional
                                                            test run can be used.

[[Page 47401]]

 
Sec.   63.7(f)....................  Alternative Test       Procedures by which         Yes.
                                     Method.                Administrator can grant
                                                            approval to use an
                                                            alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g)....................  Waiver of Tests......  Procedures for              Yes.
                                                            Administrator to waive
                                                            performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).................  Applicability of       Subject to all monitoring   Yes.
                                     Monitoring             requirements in standard.
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).................  Performance            Performance specifications  Yes.
                                     Specifications.        in Appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                            part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved]...........
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).................  Monitoring with        Unless your subpart says    Yes.
                                     Flares.                otherwise, the
                                                            requirements for flares
                                                            in Sec.   63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).................  Monitoring...........  Must conduct monitoring     Yes.
                                                            according to standard
                                                            unless Administrator
                                                            approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2) and (3).........  Multiple Effluents     Specific requirements for   Yes.
                                     and Multiple           installing monitoring
                                     Monitoring Systems.    systems; must install on
                                                            each effluent before it
                                                            is combined and before it
                                                            is released to the
                                                            atmosphere unless
                                                            Administrator approves
                                                            otherwise; if more than
                                                            one monitoring system on
                                                            an emission point, must
                                                            report all monitoring
                                                            system results, unless
                                                            one monitoring system is
                                                            a backup.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1) and (c)(1)(i)...  General Duty to        Maintain monitoring system  No, for new or
                                     Minimize Emissions     in a manner consistent      reconstructed sources
                                     and CMS Operation.     with good air pollution     which commenced
                                                            control practices.          construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                                        OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                                        FEDERAL REGISTER], and
                                                                                        No thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).............  Parts for Routine      Keep parts for routine      Yes.
                                     Repairs.               repairs readily available.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  Requirements to        Develop a written SSM plan  No, for new or
                                     develop SSM Plan for   for CMS.                    reconstructed sources
                                     CMS.                                               which commenced
                                                                                        construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2) and (3).........  Monitoring System      Must install to get         Yes.
                                     Installation.          representative emission
                                                            of parameter
                                                            measurements; must verify
                                                            operational status before
                                                            or at performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous Monitoring  CMS must be operating       No. Replaced with
                                     System (CMS)           except during breakdown,    language in Sec.
                                     Requirements.          out-of control, repair,     63.5560.
                                                            maintenance, and high-
                                                            level calibration drifts.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii).....  Continuous Monitoring  Continuous opacity          Yes, except that Sec.
                                     System (CMS)           monitoring systems (COMS)   63.8(c)(4)(i) does not
                                     Requirements.          must have a minimum of      apply because subpart
                                                            one cycle of sampling and   UUUU does not require
                                                            analysis for each           COMS.
                                                            successive 10-second
                                                            period and one cycle of
                                                            data recording for each
                                                            successive 6-minute
                                                            period; CEMS must have a
                                                            minimum of one cycle of
                                                            operation for each
                                                            successive 15-minute
                                                            period.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).................  COMS Minimum           COMS minimum procedures...  No. Subpart UUUU does not
                                     Procedures.                                        require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).................  CMS Requirements.....  Zero and high level         No. Replaced with
                                                            calibration check           language in Sec.
                                                            requirements; out-of-       63.5545.
                                                            control periods.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7) and (8).........  CMS Requirements.....  Out-of-control periods,     No. Replaced with
                                                            including reporting.        language in Sec.
                                                                                        63.5580(c)(6).
Sec.   63.8(d)....................  CMS Quality Control..  Requirements for CMS        No, except for
                                                            quality control,            requirements in Sec.
                                                            including calibration,      63.8(d)(2).
                                                            etc.; must keep quality
                                                            control plan on record
                                                            for 5 years; keep old
                                                            versions for 5 years
                                                            after revisions; program
                                                            of correction action to
                                                            be included in plan
                                                            required under Sec.
                                                            63.8(d)(2)..

[[Page 47402]]

 
Sec.   63.8(e)....................  CMS Performance        Notification, performance   Yes, except that Sec.
                                     Evaluation.            evaluation test plan,       63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not
                                                            reports.                    apply because subpart
                                                                                        UUUU does not require
                                                                                        COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1) through (5).....  Alternative            Procedures for              Yes, except that no site-
                                     Monitoring Method.     Administrator to approve    specific test plan is
                                                            alternative monitoring.     required. The request to
                                                                                        use an alternative
                                                                                        monitoring method must
                                                                                        be submitted with the
                                                                                        notification of
                                                                                        performance test or CEMS
                                                                                        performance evaluation
                                                                                        or 60 days prior to any
                                                                                        initial compliance
                                                                                        demonstration.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).................  Alternative to         Procedures for              Yes.
                                     Relative Accuracy      Administrator to approve
                                     Test.                  alternative relative
                                                            accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1) through (4).....  Data Reduction.......  COMS 6-minute averages      No. Replaced with
                                                            calculated over at least    language in Sec.
                                                            36 evenly spaced data       63.5545(e).
                                                            points; CEMS 1-hour
                                                            averages computed over at
                                                            least four equally spaced
                                                            data points; data that
                                                            cannot be used in average.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5).................  Data Reduction.......  Data that cannot be used    No. Replaced with
                                                            in computing averages for   language in Sec.
                                                            CEMS and COMS.              63.5560(b).
Sec.   63.9(a)....................  Notification           Applicability and State     Yes.
                                     Requirements.          delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1) through (5).....  Initial Notifications  Submit notification         Yes.
                                                            subject 120 days after
                                                            effective date;
                                                            notification of intent to
                                                            construct or reconstruct;
                                                            notification of
                                                            commencement of
                                                            construction or
                                                            reconstruction;
                                                            notification of startup;
                                                            contents of each.
Sec.   63.9(c)....................  Request for            Can request if cannot       Yes.
                                     Compliance Extension.  comply by date or if
                                                            installed BACT/LAER.
Sec.   63.9(d)....................  Notification of        For sources that commence   Yes.
                                     Special Compliance     construction between
                                     Requirements for New   proposal and promulgation
                                     Source.                and want to comply 3
                                                            years after effective
                                                            date.
Sec.   63.9(e)....................  Notification of        Notify Administrator 60     Yes.
                                     Performance Test.      days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  Notification of VE or  Notify Administrator 30     Yes, but only for flares
                                     Opacity Test.          days prior.                 for which EPA Method 22
                                                                                        observations are
                                                                                        required as part of a
                                                                                        flare compliance
                                                                                        assessment.
Sec.   63.9(g)....................  Additional             Notification of             Yes, except that Sec.
                                     Notifications When     performance evaluation;     63.9(g)(2) does not
                                     Using CMS.             notification using COMS     apply because subpart
                                                            data; notification that     UUUU does not require
                                                            exceeded criterion for      COMS.
                                                            relative accuracy.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1) through (6).....  Notification of        Contents; due 60 days       Yes.
                                     Compliance Status      after end of performance
                                     Report.                test or other compliance
                                                            demonstration, except for
                                                            opacity or VE, which are
                                                            due 30 days after; when
                                                            to submit to Federal vs.
                                                            State authority.
Sec.   63.9(i)....................  Adjustment of          Procedures for
                                     Submittal Deadlines.   Administrator to approve
                                                            change in when
                                                            notifications must be
                                                            submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j)....................  Change in Previous     Must submit within 15 days  Yes, except that the
                                     Information.           after the change.           notification must be
                                                                                        submitted as part of the
                                                                                        next semiannual
                                                                                        compliance report, as
                                                                                        specified in Table 8 to
                                                                                        this subpart.
Sec.   63.10(a)...................  Recordkeeping and      Applies to all, unless      Yes.
                                     Reporting.             compliance extension;
                                                            when to submit to Federal
                                                            vs. State authority;
                                                            procedures for owners of
                                                            more than one source.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)................  Recordkeeping and      General requirements; keep  Yes.
                                     Reporting.             all records readily
                                                            available; keep for 5
                                                            years.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).............  Recordkeeping of       Records of occurrence and   No, for new or
                                     Occurrence and         duration of each startup    reconstructed sources
                                     Duration of Startups   or shutdown that causes     which commenced
                                     and Shutdowns.         source to exceed emission   construction or
                                                            limitation.                 reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                                        OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                                        FEDERAL REGISTER], and
                                                                                        No thereafter.

[[Page 47403]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)............  Recordkeeping of       Records of occurrence and   No, see Table 9 for
                                     Failures to Meet a     duration of each            recordkeeping of (1)
                                     Standard.              malfunction of operation    date, time and duration;
                                                            or air pollution control    (2) listing of affected
                                                            and monitoring equipment.   source or equipment, and
                                                                                        an estimate of the
                                                                                        quantity of each
                                                                                        regulated pollutant
                                                                                        emitted over the
                                                                                        standard; and (3)
                                                                                        actions to minimize
                                                                                        emissions and correct
                                                                                        the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)...........  Maintenance Records..  Records of maintenance      Yes.
                                                            performed on air
                                                            pollution control and
                                                            monitoring equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)....  Actions Taken to       Records of actions taken    No, for new or
                                     Minimize Emissions     during SSM to minimize      reconstructed sources
                                     During SSM.            emissions.                  which commenced
                                                                                        construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and    CMS Records..........  Malfunctions, inoperative,  Yes.
 (xi).                                                      out-of-control;
                                                            calibration checks,
                                                            adjustments, maintenance.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii) through     Records..............  Measurements to             Yes, including results of
 (ix).                                                      demonstrate compliance      EPA Method 22
                                                            with emission limits;       observations required as
                                                            performance test,           part of a flare
                                                            performance evaluation,     compliance assessment.
                                                            and opacity/VE
                                                            observation results;
                                                            measurements to determine
                                                            conditions of performance
                                                            tests and performance
                                                            evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)...........  Records..............  Records when under waiver.  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..........  Records..............  Records when using          Yes.
                                                            alternative to relative
                                                            accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...........  Records..............  All documentation           Yes.
                                                            supporting Initial
                                                            Notification and
                                                            Notification of
                                                            Compliance Status Report.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)................  Records..............  Applicability               Yes.
                                                            determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1) through (6),     Records..............  Additional records for CMS  Yes.
 (9) through (14).
Sec.   63.10(c)(7) and (8)........  Records..............  Records of excess           No. Replaced with
                                                            emissions and parameter     language in Table 9 to
                                                            monitoring exceedances      this subpart.
                                                            for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...............  Use of SSM Plan......  Use SSM plan to satisfy     No, for new or
                                                            recordkeeping               reconstructed sources
                                                            requirements for            which commenced
                                                            identification of           construction or
                                                            malfunction, correction     reconstruction after
                                                            action taken, and nature    September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                            of repairs to CMS.          for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)................  General Reporting      Requirement to report.....  Yes.
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)................  Report of Performance  When to submit to Federal   Yes, except that Table 7
                                     Test Results.          or State authority.         to this subpart
                                                                                        specifies the submittal
                                                                                        date for the
                                                                                        Notification of
                                                                                        Compliance Status
                                                                                        Report.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)................  Reporting Opacity or   What to report and when...  Yes, but only for flares
                                     VE Observations.                                   for which EPA Method 22
                                                                                        observations are
                                                                                        required as part of a
                                                                                        flare compliance
                                                                                        assessment.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)................  Progress Reports.....  Must submit progress        Yes.
                                                            reports on schedule if
                                                            under compliance
                                                            extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i).............  Periodic SSM Reports.  Contents and submission of  No, for new or
                                                            periodic SSM reports.       reconstructed sources
                                                                                        which commenced
                                                                                        construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER], and No
                                                                                        thereafter. See Sec.
                                                                                        63.5580(c)(4) and Table
                                                                                        8 for malfunction
                                                                                        reporting requirements.

[[Page 47404]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)............  Immediate SSM Reports  Contents and submission of  No, for new or
                                                            immediate SSM reports.      reconstructed sources
                                                                                        which commenced
                                                                                        construction or
                                                                                        reconstruction after
                                                                                        September 9, 2019. Yes,
                                                                                        for all other affected
                                                                                        sources before [DATE 181
                                                                                        DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                                        REGISTER] except that
                                                                                        the immediate SSM report
                                                                                        must be submitted as
                                                                                        part of the next
                                                                                        semiannual compliance
                                                                                        report, as specified in
                                                                                        Table 8 to this subpart,
                                                                                        and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)........  Additional CMS         Must report results for     Yes, except that Sec.
                                     Reports.               each CEMS on a unit;        63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not
                                                            written copy of             apply because subpart
                                                            performance evaluation;     UUUU does not require
                                                            three copies of COMS        COMS.
                                                            performance evaluation.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(i) through       Reports..............  Schedule for reporting      No. Replaced with
 (iii).                                                     excess emissions and        language in Sec.
                                                            parameter monitor           63.5580.
                                                            exceedance (now defined
                                                            as deviations).
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv)............  Excess Emissions       Requirement to revert to    No. Replaced with
                                     Reports.               quarterly submission if     language in Sec.
                                                            there is an excess          63.5580.
                                                            emissions and parameter
                                                            monitor exceedance (now
                                                            defined as deviations);
                                                            provision to request
                                                            semiannual reporting
                                                            after compliance for 1
                                                            year; submit report by
                                                            30th day following end of
                                                            quarter or calendar half;
                                                            if there has not been an
                                                            exceedance or excess
                                                            emission (now defined as
                                                            deviations), report
                                                            contents is a statement
                                                            that there have been no
                                                            deviations.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(v).............  Excess Emissions       Must submit report          No. Replaced with
                                     Reports.               containing all of the       language in Sec.
                                                            information in Sec.         63.5580.
                                                            63.10(c)(5) through (13),
                                                            Sec.   63.8(c)(7) and (8).
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(vi) through      Excess Emissions       Requirements for reporting  No. Replaced with
 (viii).                             Report and Summary     excess emissions for CMS    language in Sec.
                                     Report.                (now called deviations);    63.5580.
                                                            requires all of the
                                                            information in Sec.
                                                            63.10(c)(5) through (13),
                                                            Sec.   63.8(c)(7) and (8).
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)................  Reporting COMS Data..  Must submit COMS data with  No. Subpart UUUU does not
                                                            performance test data.      require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)...................  Waiver for             Procedures for              Yes.
                                     Recordkeeping or       Administrator to waive.
                                     Reporting.
Sec.   63.11......................  Control and Work       Requirements for flares     Yes.
                                     Practice               and alternative work
                                     Requirements.          practice for equipment
                                                            leaks.
Sec.   63.12......................  State Authority and    State authority to enforce  Yes.
                                     Delegations.           standards.
Sec.   63.13......................  Addresses............  Addresses where reports,    Yes.
                                                            notifications, and
                                                            requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14......................  Incorporations by      Test methods incorporated   Yes.
                                     Reference.             by reference.
Sec.   63.15......................  Availability of        Public and confidential     Yes.
                                     Information and        information.
                                     Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16......................  Performance Track      Requirements for            Yes.
                                     Provisions.            Performance Track member
                                                            facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-18330 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.