Rule2026-06304
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 1, 2026
Effective
April 1, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) categories pursuant to a technology review under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(6). Specifically, the EPA is finalizing new leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for equipment leaks and heat exchange systems in organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) service. In addition, the EPA is taking final action to add standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs) and pressure vessels; require electronic reporting for notification of compliance status (NOCS), performance test reports, and periodic reports; and require continuous performance testing of non-flare air pollution control devices (APCD). The EPA is not finalizing the proposed area source category for chemical manufacturing with ethylene oxide (EtO) or related standards at this time.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16502-16538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06304]
[[Page 16501]]
Vol. 91
Wednesday,
No. 62
April 1, 2026
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16502]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303; FRL-7623-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU73
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS)
categories pursuant to a technology review under Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 112(d)(6). Specifically, the EPA is finalizing new leak
detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for equipment leaks and heat
exchange systems in organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) service. In
addition, the EPA is taking final action to add standards for pressure
relief devices (PRDs) and pressure vessels; require electronic
reporting for notification of compliance status (NOCS), performance
test reports, and periodic reports; and require continuous performance
testing of non-flare air pollution control devices (APCD). The EPA is
not finalizing the proposed area source category for chemical
manufacturing with ethylene oxide (EtO) or related standards at this
time.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 1, 2026. The Director of
the Federal Register (FR) has approved incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the rule as of April 1, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303. All documents in the docket are available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The EPA does not
place certain other material, such as copyrighted material, on the
internet; this material is publicly available only as portable document
format (PDF) versions accessible only on EPA computers in the docket
office reading room. The public cannot download certain databases and
physical items from the docket but may request these items by
contacting the docket office at (202) 566-1744. The docket office has
10 business days to respond to these requests. With the exception of
such material, publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or on the EPA computers
in the docket office reading room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this final rule,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: William Gallagher, Mail Drop: Industrial
Processing and Power Division (E140C), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O.
Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-2336; and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7631171a1a17111e130458211f1a1a1f171b3613061758111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdba9c91919c9a95988fd3aa949191949c90bd988d9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use
of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' refers to the EPA. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AMEL Alternative Means of Emission Limitation
APCD air pollution control device
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMAS Chemical Manufacturing Area Source(s)
CMPU chemical manufacturing process unit
EAV equivalent annualized value
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
EtO ethylene oxide
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
gpm gallons per minute
G/V gas/vapor
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HL heavy liquid
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
ICR information collection request
kPa kilopascal(s)
LDAR leak detection and repair
LDSN leak detection and sensor network
LL light liquid
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS notification of compliance status
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupation Safety and Health Administration
PDF portable document format
PEPO Polyether Polyols
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR risk and technology review
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
E. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
F. Severability
II. Background
A. What are the CMAS categories, and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
B. What changes did we propose for the CMAS categories in our
January 22, 2025, proposal?
C. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(5) for organic HAP?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the CMAS categories?
C. What other changes have we made to the NESHAP?
D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the CMAS categories?
A. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(5) for Organic HAP
for the CMAS Categories
B. Technology Review for the CMAS Categories
C. Other Amendments to the CMAS NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
[[Page 16503]]
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. 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 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
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. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
Background information. On January 22, 2025, the EPA proposed
revisions to the CMAS NESHAP based on the Agency's technology review
undertaken pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\1\ In that action, the
EPA also proposed to list and establish standards, pursuant to CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (d)(5) respectively, for a new source category
for area sources that produce a material or family of materials
described by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
325 using EtO.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 7942 (Jan. 22, 2025).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, the EPA is establishing standards for existing
CMAS categories based on the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review.
This preamble summarizes some of the more significant comments the EPA
received regarding the proposed CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review
and provides the Agency's responses. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposed CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and
the EPA's responses to those comments are in the document Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, which
is in the docket for this rulemaking.\3\ A ``track changes'' version of
the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
also in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed
listing and regulation of EtO from area sources producing a material or
family of materials described by NAICS code 325. The EPA received
numerous comments and information both in favor of and opposed to the
proposed listing and regulation of EtO from area sources that produce a
material or family of materials described by NAICS code 325 (chemical
manufacturing), and the Agency needs additional time to consider those
comments before taking final action. The EPA intends to coordinate a
final action on this issue with the regulation of EtO from major
sources of HAP. The EPA will address EtO-specific comments on the
proposed listing and regulation when the Agency takes final action on
those portions of the proposal.
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
In 2009, the EPA promulgated standards to regulate HAP emissions of
15 air toxics from CMAS pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3).
In 2012, the EPA granted and finalized reconsideration of the CMAS
NESHAP in response to petitioner concerns on topics such as title V
permitting, overlap provisions, leak inspections, requirements for
covers and lids, and the applicability of the NESHAP. As part of the
2012 rules, the EPA proposed and finalized additional standards for
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, metal HAP process vents,
and technical corrections.
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and revise
emission standards ``as necessary'' no less often than every eight
years (i.e., a technology review). On January 22, 2025, the EPA
proposed changes to the CMAS NESHAP and solicited public comment.\4\
This final action fulfills the EPA's obligation under CAA section
112(d)(6) and an associated consent decree. The EPA proposed addressing
EtO emissions from area source chemical manufacturers by proposing to
list a new area source category and proposing EtO-specific standards
for several emission process groups. In addition, the EPA proposed more
general standards and management practices to address fugitive
emissions from CMAS chemical manufacturing process units (CMPUs),
including updates to water monitoring methods for heat exchange
systems, an instrument monitoring program, and new standards for PRDs
and pressure vessels. Also, the EPA proposed several changes to align
the CMAS NESHAP with other, similar chemical sector rules. The proposed
changes included establishing electronic reporting, requiring regular
performance testing, restricting bypasses, and removing certain
affirmative defense provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 90 FR 7942 (Jan. 22, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, the EPA is finalizing the non-EtO provisions as
proposed with only clarifying changes and technical corrections. The
EPA determined that the costs of the final revisions are reasonable and
not overly burdensome based on the Agency's technical analyses, which
are available in the docket, and on the Agency's assumption that CMAS
CMPUs operate similarly to CMPUs subject to major source NESHAP.\5\
While commenters expressed some concerns with the proposed standards,
the EPA did not receive sufficient information to change the analyses.
The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed EtO area source
category and emission standards at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA estimates that this action will have present value (PV)
costs of $72 million at a three percent discount rate and $56 million
at a seven percent discount rate over the 2027 to 2041 timeframe (in
2024 dollars). The EPA estimates that the final action will have an
equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $6.1 million and $6.2 million per
year at the same discount rates, respectively (in 2024 dollars).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Table 1 of this preamble lists categories and
entities potentially regulated by this action.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source categories NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides 325311, 325312, and 325320.
Manufacturing.
Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production... 32511 and 325120.
Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 325120, 325130, and 32518.
Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing.. 325130, 32519, 3256, and
3259.
[[Page 16504]]
Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing........... 325130.
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 325130, 32519, 3256, and
Manufacturing. 3259.
Pharmaceutical Production Manufacturing.... 325411, 325412, and 325414.
Plastic Materials and Resins............... 325211.
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing............. 325212.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA does not intend table 1 of this preamble to be exhaustive
but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities that this
final action likely affects for the source categories listed. To
determine if this action affects your facility, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
CAA section 112, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), provides the
statutory authority for this final action. CAA section 112(d)(6)
requires the EPA to review technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less often than every eight
years following promulgation of those standards. The EPA must conduct
this ``technology review'' for standards established under CAA section
112(d), including generally available control technology (GACT)
standards that apply to area sources.\6\ This action finalizes the CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review for the nine area source categories
affected by the CMAS NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards,
CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) do not require the EPA to conduct
a residual risk review pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2). However,
the EPA must conduct periodic technology reviews under CAA section
112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action, as
they specifically address regulation of HAP emissions from area
sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are
the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics
Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area sources
under CAA section 112.
CAA section 112(k)(3)(B) requires the EPA to identify at least 30
HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas with
a primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence
attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As discussed in
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, the EPA identified 30 HAP
emitted from area sources that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are commonly referred to as the
``30 urban HAP.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 64 FR 38706, 38715 (July 19, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting
standards for categories of area sources, including the nine CMAS
categories that are addressed in this action.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, the
EPA may promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which
provide for the use of generally available control technology or
management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants'' in lieu of setting maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards (which are generally required for
major source categories). In developing GACT standards, the EPA
evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce
HAP emissions that are generally available for each area source
category. Consistent with the legislative history, the EPA can consider
costs and economic impacts in determining what constitutes GACT.\9\ The
EPA set GACT standards for the nine CMAS categories in 2009.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Sen. Rep. No. 101-228 (1989).
\10\ 74 FR 56008 (Oct. 29, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to the docket, an electronic copy of this final action
is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/chemical-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission-standards</a>. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will
post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this
same website.
E. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 1, 2026.
Under CAA section 307(b)(2), a party cannot challenge the requirements
established by this final rule separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that only an objection to
a rule or procedure which a party raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may
be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a
mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
F. Severability
This final rule contains several discrete components, which the EPA
views as severable as a practical matter--i.e., they are functionally
independent and will operate in
[[Page 16505]]
practice without relying on the other components. Sections III.A
through III.C of this preamble and the technical memoranda available in
the docket provide detail about these discrete components. In addition,
as this final rule revises an existing NESHAP, the standards
promulgated in the 2012 final rule would remain in place in the event
of an adverse result upon judicial review of this final rule.
II. Background
A. What are the CMAS categories, and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source categories?
The source categories that are the subject of this final action are
the Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude
and Intermediate Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical
Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic
Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing,
Pharmaceutical Production, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing,
and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing source categories. The EPA
promulgated the CMAS NESHAP on October 29, 2009, and codified the
NESHAP at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart
VVVVVV.\11\ As promulgated in 2009 and amended on December 21, 2012,
the CMAS NESHAP regulates CMPUs at an area source of HAP emissions if
HAP listed in table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV are used as a
feedstock, generated as a byproduct, or generated as a product by the
CMPU.\12\ A CMPU includes all process vessels, equipment, and
activities necessary to operate a chemical manufacturing process that
produces a material or a family of materials described by NAICS code
325, subject to certain exclusions.\13\ A CMPU consists of one or more-
unit operations and any associated recovery devices. A CMPU also
includes each storage tank, transfer operation, surge control vessel,
and bottoms receiver associated with the production of such NAICS code
325 materials. The affected source is the facility-wide collection of
CMPUs, and each heat exchange system and wastewater system associated
with a CMPU that contains one of the table 1 HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 74 FR 56008 (Oct. 29, 2009).
\12\ 74 FR 56008 (Oct. 29, 2009); 77 FR 75740 (Dec. 21, 2012).
\13\ Exclusions: (1) processes classified in NAICS Code 325222,
325314, 325413, or 325998; (2) processes subject to standards for
other listed area source categories in NAICS 325; (3) certain
fabricating operations; (4) manufacture of photographic film, paper,
and plate where material is coated or contains chemicals (but the
manufacture of the photographic chemicals is regulated); and (5)
manufacture of radioactive elements or isotopes, radium chloride,
radium luminous compounds, strontium, and uranium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nine affected CMAS categories encompass facilities that use as
feedstocks, generate as byproducts, or produce as products any of the
following 15 HAP: 1,3-butadiene; 1,3-dichloropropene; acetaldehyde;
chloroform; ethylene dichloride; hexachlorobenzene; methylene chloride;
quinoline (these eight HAP are referred to as the ``Table 1 organic
HAP''); compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or
nickel (these six HAP are referred to as the ``Table 1 metal HAP''); or
hydrazine.<SUP>14 15</SUP> In this preamble, we refer to the nine
source categories collectively as the CMAS categories. Descriptions of
the nine source categories are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other additives
to the process.
\15\ ``Table 1'' refers to table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing. NAICS codes
325311 (nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing), 325312 (phosphatic
fertilizer manufacturing), and 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural
chemical manufacturing) define the agricultural chemicals and
pesticides manufacturing source category. Products of this industry
include nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizer materials including
anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate,
urea, phosphoric acid, superphosphates, ammonium phosphates, and
calcium metaphosphates. The source category also includes the
formulation and preparation of ready-to-use agricultural and household
pest control chemicals from technical chemicals or concentrates, the
production of concentrates which require further processing before use
as agricultural pesticides, and the manufacturing or formulating of
other agricultural chemicals such as minor or trace elements and soil
conditioners.
Organic Chemical Production. This section discusses cyclic crude
and intermediate production, industrial organic chemical manufacturing,
and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing source categories
collectively because there is considerable overlap in the NAICS codes
that apply to these source categories. These source categories include
cellulosic organic fiber manufacturing as well as other source
categories designated by NAICS codes 32511 (petrochemical
manufacturing), 325130 (synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing), 32519
(other basic organic chemical manufacturing), and 3256 (soap, cleaning
compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing). The source category
also includes organic gases designated by NAICS code 325120 (industrial
gas manufacturing) and production of chemicals such as explosives and
photographic chemicals designated by NAICS code 3259 (other chemical
product and preparation manufacturing). Raw materials for this industry
include, for example, refined petroleum chemicals, coal tars, and wood.
The industry manufactures a wide variety of final products as well as
numerous chemicals that are used as feedstocks to produce these final
products and products in other chemical manufacturing source
categories. Examples of types of products include solvents, organic
dyes and pigments, plasticizers, alcohols, detergents, and flavorings.
Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing. NAICS code 325120
(industrial gas manufacturing), manufacturing of inorganic dyes that
are designated by NAICS code 325130 (synthetic dye and pigment
manufacturing), and most manufacturing designated by NAICS code 325180
(other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing) define the industrial
inorganic chemical manufacturing source category. The NESHAP excludes
certain NAICS code 325180 productions such as carbon black and mercury
cell chlor-alkali production, which are separate source categories.
Inorganic Pigment Manufacturing. Inorganic pigments are part of
NAICS code 325130 (synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing). Most
inorganic pigments are oxides, sulfides, oxide hydroxides, silicates,
sulfates, or carbonates that normally consist of single component
particles. Inorganic pigment manufacturing processes can generally be
divided between those that use partial combustion and those that use
pure pyrolysis. Manufacturers mainly use inorganic pigments to impart
colors to a variety of compounds. They may also impart properties of
rust inhibition, rigidity, and abrasion resistance. Inorganic pigments
are generally insoluble and remain unchanged physically and chemically
when mixed with a carrier. Pigment manufacturers supply inorganic
colors in a variety of forms including powders, pastes, granules,
slurries, and suspensions. Manufacturers of paints and stains, printing
inks, plastics, synthetic textiles, paper, cosmetics, contact lenses,
soaps, detergents, wax, modeling clay, chalks, crayons, artists'
[[Page 16506]]
colors, concrete, masonry products, and ceramics use these pigments for
those products.
Pharmaceutical Production. The pharmaceutical manufacturing source
category consists of chemical production operations that produce drugs
and medication. These operations include chemical synthesis (deriving a
drug's active ingredient) and chemical formulation (producing a drug in
its final form). NAICS codes 325411 (medicinal and botanical
manufacturing), 325412 (pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing), and
325414 (biological product, except diagnostic, manufacturing) define
the source category.
Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing. NAICS code 325211
(plastics material and resin manufacturing) designates the plastic
materials and resins manufacturing source category. Examples of
products in this source category include epoxy resins, nylon resins,
phenolic resins, polyesters, polyethylene resins, and styrene resins.
The source category does not include polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production, which is a separate source category.
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. NAICS code 325212 (synthetic rubber
manufacturing) defines the synthetic rubber manufacturing source
category. Facilities in this source category manufacture synthetic
rubber or vulcanizable elastomers by polymerization or
copolymerization. For this source category, an elastomer is defined as
a rubber-like material capable of vulcanization, such as copolymers of
butadiene and styrene, copolymers of butadiene and acrylonitrile,
polybutadienes, chloroprene rubbers, and isobutylene-isoprene
copolymers.
The HAP emission sources at facilities subject to the CMAS NESHAP
include process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer
operations, and wastewater. Additionally, some facilities have cooling
towers or other heat exchangers. The GACT standards for CMAS include
emission standards in the form of management practices for each CMPU as
well as emission limits for certain emission sources including process
vents and storage tanks. The rule also establishes management practices
and other emission reduction requirements for wastewater systems and
heat exchange systems.
As of September 1, 2025, the EPA identified 251 facilities in
operation that are subject to the CMAS NESHAP. In this preamble, the
EPA refers to these facilities collectively as ``CMAS facilities.'' The
document entitled List of Facilities Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, which
is in the docket for this rulemaking, presents the list of CMAS
facilities located in the United States that are part of the CMAS
categories with processes subject to the CMAS NESHAP.\16\ The EPA notes
that where the Agency refers to ``area source chemical manufacturers,''
we are referring to area sources that manufacture chemicals but are not
subject to the CMAS NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What changes did we propose for the CMAS categories in our January
22, 2025, proposal?
This section provides a brief summary of the EPA's proposed
revisions to the CMAS NESHAP.\17\ For additional background
information, such as how the EPA developed the facility list, refer to
section II of the proposal preamble.\18\ For descriptions of how the
EPA determined GACT and how the EPA conducted the technology review,
refer to section III of the proposal preamble.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ On May 24, 2022, the EPA received a complaint alleging that
the Agency failed to undertake non-discretionary duties related to
the technology review of the CMAS NESHAP. As a result, on December
19, 2023, the EPA entered into a consent decree to finalize a
technology review of the CMAS NESHAP by September 17, 2025, later
amended by stipulations to March 31, 2026. The EPA issued the 2025
proposal as part of the Agency's efforts to fulfill the consent
decree and the Agency's statutory obligations.
\18\ 90 FR 7942 (Jan. 22, 2025).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proposed Actions Related to CAA Section 112(d)(5) for Organic HAP
The EPA proposed first-time requirements under CAA section
112(d)(5) for pressure vessels, PRDs, and closed vent systems
containing bypass lines. Specifically, the EPA proposed:
<bullet> new monitoring requirements for pressure vessels in
organic HAP service,
<bullet> new management practices for emissions from PRDs in
organic HAP service, and
<bullet> expressly prohibiting bypassing an APCD.
2. Proposed Actions Related to CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review
Pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the
CMAS NESHAP, the EPA proposed that no revisions to the current
standards are necessary for wastewater, storage tanks, transfer
operations, or flares. However, the EPA proposed additional changes
under CAA section 112(d)(6) for equipment leaks, heat exchange systems,
and certain process vents.
<bullet> For equipment leaks at new and existing affected sources,
the EPA proposed that owners and operators with equipment in organic
HAP service must monitor pumps in light liquid (LL) service, valves in
gas/vapor (G/V) service and LL service, and connectors in G/V service
and LL service annually via EPA Method 21 with a leak definition of
10,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Additionally, the EPA
proposed to incorporate the monitoring requirements from 40 CFR part
63, subpart H for compressors, sampling connection systems, open-ended
valves or lines, equipment in heavy liquid (HL) service, closed vent
systems and control devices, and agitators in organic HAP service.
<bullet> For heat exchange systems in organic HAP service with flow
rates greater than or equal to 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm), the EPA
proposed requirements that owners or operators conduct quarterly
monitoring (after an initial six months of monthly monitoring if not
already completed) using the Modified El Paso Method and a leak
definition of 6.2 ppmv of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration
(as methane) in the stripping gas.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Modified El Paso Method uses a dynamic or flow-through
system for air stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the
resultant off-gases for VOC using a common flame ionization detector
analyzer. Appendix P of the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality's Sampling Procedures Manual: The Air Stripping Method
(Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions from Water Sources describes this method in
detail. Appendix P is in the docket for this rulemaking (see Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> For process vents, the EPA proposed to remove the 50 ppmv
concentration threshold from the definition of ``metal HAP process
vent.''
Other Proposed Actions
In addition to the actions described in sections II.B.1 and II.B.2
of this preamble, the EPA proposed:
<bullet> to change the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to
require the use of the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) for
notifications of compliance status (NOCS), performance test reports,
and periodic reports;
<bullet> to remove affirmative defense provisions from the CMAS
NESHAP in compliance with Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v.
EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014);
<bullet> to require subsequent performance testing once every five
years to demonstrate compliance with emission limits for certain
process vents;
<bullet> to remove an exemption for certain wastewater streams
during periods of startup and shutdown;
<bullet> to revise the phrasing used in 40 CFR 63.11502(a) to refer
to NESHAP
[[Page 16507]]
subpart F in instances where a definition in the CMAS NESHAP points to
either NESHAP subpart G or H; and
<bullet> to make other technical and editorial corrections for the
CMAS NESHAP.
C. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal?
As part of this rulemaking, the EPA conducted listening sessions
with representatives of CMAS facility owners and operators through
meetings with the American Chemistry Council and Harcros Chemicals Inc.
in September 2025. Additional details about these meetings are in the
document Documentation of Meetings with Industry Stakeholders--August
and September, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is included in this final rule?
In this action, the EPA is finalizing the Agency's determinations
pursuant to the technology review provisions of CAA section 112 for the
CMAS categories and amending the CMAS NESHAP based on those
determinations (see sections III.A and III.B of this preamble). The EPA
also is finalizing other changes to the CMAS NESHAP described in
section III.C of this preamble. This action also reflects several
changes from the January 22, 2025, proposal in consideration of
comments received during the public comment period as described in
section IV of this preamble. For the EPA's complete responses to the
submitted comments, please see the document entitled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources in the docket
for this rulemaking.
The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed listing and
regulation of EtO emissions from chemical manufacturing area sources
because the Agency needs additional time to consider the comments on
the proposed listing and regulation of such emissions and because the
Agency wants to coordinate the regulation of EtO emissions from area
sources with the regulation of such emissions from major sources. The
proposed rule distinguished the new listing and regulation of EtO
emissions from the mandatory technology review of the CMAS rule. The
EPA listed CMAS categories for specific HAP emissions as part of the
Urban Air Toxics program under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B),
and EtO emissions were not in that listing. For that reason, the EPA's
responsibility under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the consent decree do
not apply to the listing and regulation of EtO emissions from chemical
manufacturing area sources. Thus, the Agency is deferring a final
decision on the proposed listing and regulation of EtO emissions at
this time.
A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)
for organic HAP?
For pressure vessels, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the
definition for pressure vessel by reference to the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) at 40 CFR 63.101, the removal of the exemption for
``pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals
(kPa) and without emissions to the atmosphere,'' from the definition of
a storage tank, and a no detectable emissions requirement for pressure
vessels (i.e., each point on the pressure vessel where total organic
HAP could potentially be emitted must have an instrument reading less
than 500 ppmv). The no detectable emissions provisions also require
initial and annual monitoring using EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-7 and routing organic HAP through a closed vent system to a
control device (i.e., no releases to the atmosphere through any points
on the pressure vessel).
For PRDs, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the incorporation of
various practices to minimize emissions from PRD releases and leaks.
Specifically, the EPA is finalizing PRD management practices that
require owners and operators to monitor PRDs in organic HAP service for
leaks after placing a PRD into organic HAP service following a pressure
release from the PRD. These final provisions also require, as proposed,
owners and operators to implement preventative measures, perform root
cause analysis and corrective action if a PRD releases directly to
atmosphere, and monitor PRDs such that the time and duration of each
pressure release can be recorded. The EPA is also finalizing the
Agency's proposed definitions for ``pressure relief device or valve''
and ``pressure release'' without changes.
For closed vent systems with bypass lines, the EPA is finalizing,
as proposed, that owners and operators may not bypass the APCD at any
time and that doing so is a deviation from the emission standards. The
EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, that the use of a cap, blind
flange, plug, or second valve on open-ended valves or lines is
sufficient to prevent a bypass. Lastly, the EPA is finalizing, as
proposed, the removal of the exemption for gas streams exiting
analyzers.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the CMAS categories?
For equipment leaks in the CMAS categories, the EPA determined that
there are developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards in the CMAS
NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). After considering public
input, the EPA is finalizing the proposed instrument monitoring program
(i.e., annual monitoring of pumps in LL service, valves in G/V and LL
service, and connectors in G/V and LL service) using a leak definition
of 10,000 ppmv. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing the Agency's
proposal to incorporate all the requirements from 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H for compressors, sampling connections systems, open-ended
valves or lines, equipment in HL service, closed vent systems and
control devices, and agitators.
For heat exchange systems in the CMAS categories, the EPA
determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards in
the CMAS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). After considering
public input, the EPA is finalizing the proposed GACT standards,
requiring owners and operators to conduct quarterly monitoring for new
and existing heat exchange systems with flowrates greater than or equal
to 8,000 gpm (after an initial six months of monthly monitoring if not
already completed) using the Modified El Paso Method and repair leaks
of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the
stripping gas of 6.2 ppmv or greater without changes. The EPA is also
finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators may use the current
leak monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems at 40 CFR
63.104(b) in lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method, provided that
99 percent by weight or more of the organic compounds that could leak
into the heat exchange system are water soluble and have a Henry's Law
Constant less than 5.0E-6 atmospheres-cubic meters per mole at 25
degrees Celsius.
For process vents in the CMAS categories, the EPA determined that
there are developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT standards in the CMAS
NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). After
[[Page 16508]]
considering public input, the EPA is revising the definition of ``metal
HAP process vent'' to remove the 50 ppmv metal HAP concentration
threshold, as proposed.
For storage tanks, wastewater streams, and transfer operations in
the CMAS categories, the EPA is finalizing its proposed determination
in the technology review that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the GACT
standards. The EPA notes that the Agency is finalizing standards for
pressure vessels pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) (see section III.A
of this preamble), which eliminates their exemption from the definition
of ``storage tank'' in the CMAS NESHAP.
Section III.D of this preamble provides a detailed discussion of
the effective and compliance dates for the requirements the EPA is
finalizing in this action for the CMAS NESHAP. Section IV.B.3 of this
preamble provides a summary of key comments the EPA received on the CAA
section 112(d)(6) provisions and the Agency's responses.
C. What other changes have we made to the NESHAP?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
CMAS NESHAP requirements. The EPA describes these revisions in this
section as well as other proposed provisions that have changed since
the proposal.
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that
owners or operators submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through the EPA's
CDX using the CEDRI. The document Electronic Reporting Requirements for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket
for this rulemaking, provides a description of the electronic data
submissions process.\22\ The final rule requires that owners and
operators submit performance test results in the format generated
through the use of the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) or an
electronic file consistent with the XML schema on the ERT website.\23\
Electronic files consistent with the XML schema on the ERT website must
accompany all information required by 40 CFR 63.7(g)(2) in PDF format.
For periodic reports, the final rule requires that owners or operators
use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to
CEDRI. The EPA has made minor clarifying edits to the spreadsheet
templates based on comments received during the public comment period.
The final version of the template for these reports will be available
on the CEDRI website.\24\ The final rule requires that owners or
operators submit NOCS as a PDF upload in CEDRI. For a more detailed
discussion of these final amendments, see section IV.D.1 of the
proposal preamble and sections IV.C and VI.C of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0006.
\23\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>.
\24\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also is finalizing, as proposed, initial and recurring
performance testing to demonstrate compliance with certain process vent
and storage tank provisions. Additionally, the EPA proposed and is
finalizing the removal of the design evaluation and engineering
assessment options for process vents in organic HAP service or metal
HAP service, respectively. Additionally, consistent with NRDC, the EPA
is finalizing, as proposed, the elimination of the affirmative defense
provisions at 40 CFR 63.11501(e) and the definition of ``affirmative
defense'' in 40 CFR 63.11502(b).
Lastly, the EPA is finalizing many of the revisions that the Agency
proposed for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors,
grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These include but are
not limited to specifying which version of NAICS codes to reference
when reviewing applicability per 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(2)(iv), removing
redundant provisions at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(5), and adding headings at
40 CFR 63.11497(a) and (c). Section IV.D.3 of the proposal preamble
discusses the proposed editorial corrections and clarifications. The
document entitled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking,
contains the comments on these changes and the EPA's specific responses
to these items.
D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
For the requirements the EPA is finalizing under CAA sections
112(d)(5) and (6), all existing affected sources and all affected
sources that were new sources under the previous CMAS NESHAP (i.e.,
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 6,
2008, and on or before January 22, 2025), must comply with all of the
amendments no later than April 1, 2029, or upon startup, whichever is
later, as proposed. For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides
that the compliance date for standards promulgated under CAA section
112(d) shall be as expeditious as practicable but no later than three
years after the effective date of the standard.\25\ The EPA agrees with
the commenters that owners and operators need three years to implement
the requirements the Agency is finalizing under CAA sections 112(d)(5)
and (6).\26\ This rulemaking impacts 251 sources, many of which may be
addressing fugitive emissions from certain sources for the first time
(e.g., implementing an instrument monitoring program for equipment
leaks). Facilities need time to purchase and install additional
equipment or systems, such as preventative measures for PRDs.
Additionally, the number of CMAS facilities that are near one another
could potentially strain certain local resources such as LDAR
contractors or equipment vendors. Owners, operators, and relevant
authorities may also need to update permits (e.g., New Source Review
and/or title V operating permit modifications) to account for the
additional NESHAP requirements. Moreover, we recognize that owners and
operators may need at least three years to understand the final rule
changes; revise site guidance and compliance programs; ensure
operations can meet the standards during startup and shutdown; update
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans; and upgrade emissions
capture and control systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C.
Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated
under [section 112].'').
\26\ See section 6.0 of the document entitled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided in CAA section 112(i) and 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3), all new
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
January 22, 2025, must comply with all requirements under CAA sections
112(d)(5) and (6) by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is
later. The EPA provided additional rationale for these compliance dates
in the preamble to the proposed rule. For the EPA's complete responses
regarding compliance dates, please see section 6.0 of the document
[[Page 16509]]
entitled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area
Sources in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA is also finalizing provisions that allow up to 150 days
after the publication date of the final rule for owners or operators of
affected sources to comply with the requirement to submit NOCS reports
electronically. The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow 60 days after the publication date of the final rule for owners
or operators of affected sources to comply with the requirement to
submit the results of performance tests electronically, and three years
after the publication date of the final rule for owners or operators of
affected sources to comply with the requirement to submit periodic
reports electronically.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the CMAS categories?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what the EPA
proposed and what the Agency is finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the
final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and
responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, the
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area
Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking, contains the
comment summaries and the EPA's responses to those comments.
A. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(5) for Organic HAP for the
CMAS Categories
What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) for organic
HAP for the CMAS categories?
Based on the EPA's review of existing standards affecting CMPUs in
the CMAS categories, the Agency proposed under CAA section 112(d)(5)
additional standards for pressure vessels, PRDs, and closed vent
systems containing bypass lines. The EPA provides a summary of the
Agency's findings, as proposed, in this section.
a. Pressure Vessels
The EPA proposed to define pressure vessel at 40 CFR 63.11502(a)--
by reference to 40 CFR 63.101--to mean ``a storage vessel that is used
to store liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere
as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure
vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity''
and to remove the exemption for ``pressure vessels designed to operate
in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the
atmosphere'' from the definition of storage tank in 40 CFR 63.11502(b).
The EPA also proposed to require no detectable emissions at all times
(i.e., each point on the pressure vessel where total organic HAP could
potentially be emitted must have an instrument reading less than 500
ppmv) at 40 CFR 63.11497(f) and item 6 of table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP;
initial and annual monitoring using EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-7; and routing organic HAP through a closed vent system to a
control device (i.e., no releases to the atmosphere through any points
on the pressure vessel).
b. PRDs
The EPA proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6)(iv)
(incorporating 40 CFR 63.165(e)(1) through (8)) that owners and
operators must: (1) operate each PRD in organic HAP gas or vapor
service with less than a 500 ppm difference above background as
measured by the method specified in 40 CFR 63.180(c); (2) conduct
instrument monitoring no later than five calendar days after the PRD
returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service following a pressure
release or, if applicable, install a replacement rupture disk as soon
as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than five
calendar days after the pressure release; (3) implement at least three
prevention measures; (4) perform root cause analysis and corrective
action if a PRD releases emissions directly to the atmosphere; and (5)
monitor PRDs using a system that can identify and record the time and
duration of each pressure release and notify operators when a pressure
release occurs. The EPA also proposed to define ``pressure relief
device or valve'' at 40 CFR 63.11502(a)--by reference to the HON (40
CFR 63.101)--to mean ``a valve, rupture disk, or similar device used
only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas from process
equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. A PRD
discharge can result from an operator error, a malfunction such as a
power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected causes. Such
devices include conventional, spring-actuated relief valves, balanced
bellows relief valves, pilot-operated relief valves, rupture disks, and
breaking, buckling, or shearing pin devices. Devices that are actuated
either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square
inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.'' In
addition, the EPA proposed to define ``pressure release'' at 40 CFR
63.11502(a)--by reference to the HON (40 CFR 63.101)--to mean ``the
emission of materials resulting from the system pressure being greater
than the set pressure of the pressure relief device.\27\ This release
can be one release or a series of releases over a short time period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The HON includes multiple part 63 subparts, including 40
CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H. 40 CFR 63.101 refers to the
definitions section of 40 CFR part 63, subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Closed Vent Systems Containing Bypass Lines
The EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.11495(e) that an owner or operator
may not bypass an APCD at any time, that a bypass is an emission
standard deviation, and that owners and operators must estimate,
maintain records of, and report the quantity of organic HAP released.
The EPA also proposed that the use of a cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve on open-ended valves or lines (following the requirements
specified in 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) or following
requirements codified in another regulation that are the same as 40 CFR
60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c)) is sufficient to prevent a bypass.
Lastly, the EPA proposed to remove the exemption for gas streams
exiting analyzers from the definition of continuous process vent at 40
CFR 63.11502(b) and to clarify at 40 CFR 63.11495(e) that analyzer
vents are not exempt from the continuous process vent standards.
2. How did the new standards for organic HAP from the CMAS categories
change?
Except for a clarification regarding the pressure vessel
provisions, the EPA is finalizing the new standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(5) as proposed. For pressure vessels, based on a comment
received during the public comment period, the EPA is revising the
final requirements at 40 CFR 63.11497(e)(2) to clarify that the unsafe
and difficult/inaccessible monitoring provisions apply to components on
pressure vessels as well. Notably, the EPA proposed to include unsafe
and difficult/inaccessible monitoring provisions via reference to 40
CFR 63.168(h) and (i) (for valves in G/V and in LL service) and 40 CFR
63.174(f) and (h) (for connectors in G/V and in LL service). However,
the EPA's revisions instead incorporate the unsafe and difficult/
inaccessible monitoring provisions the Agency proposed and is
finalizing as part of the final instrument monitoring program for
equipment leaks
[[Page 16510]]
from valves in G/V or LL service, pumps in LL service, and connectors
in G/V or LL service (see section IV.B.3.b of this preamble) for
components on pressure vessels.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposal revisions pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(5) for organic HAP, and what are our responses?
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding (1) the EPA's authority to establish
requirements for certain emissions sources pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(5) and (2) the Agency's proposed new monitoring requirements for
pressure vessels in organic HAP service. The EPA did not receive many
substantive comments on the other amendments discussed in this section
IV.A of this preamble. The document entitled Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, which is in the
docket for this rulemaking, contains the comments and the EPA's
specific responses to these issues.
a. CAA Authority
Comment: Commenters claimed that the EPA failed to appropriately
recognize the fundamental differences between area and major sources as
distinct sets of sources with different characteristics, including area
sources' unique challenges and constraints, such as facility personnel,
time demands, and available resources. The commenters stated that area
sources often face these and other pressures in ways that are different
but no less serious than their major source counterparts. A commenter
provided an example, saying that the smaller universe of facility
employees at area sources often means that staff spend more time
evaluating, understanding, and planning for new regulatory requirements
and the associated compliance needs. As such, the commenter expressed
that staff commitments may lead to unplanned disruptions in routine
operations elsewhere, which can further strain smaller sources that are
already more resource-constrained than other entities.
The commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(5) allows GACT
requirements to accommodate these challenges and is intentionally more
streamlined and cost-conscious than other CAA regulatory schemes.
However, the commenter asserted that the EPA purposefully erased the
distinction in favor of imposing costly new regulatory burdens on
smaller entities that would not yield commensurate environmental
benefit. The commenter stated that the EPA based the proposed standards
on MACT standards, which, they argued, were never intended to apply to
area sources. The commenter opined that MACT-level requirements such as
quarterly instrument monitoring programs would require a dedicated LDAR
contractor and data management system (resulting in several thousand
dollars per year of new and potentially unnecessary costs to small
facilities) while audio, visual, and olfactory programs (GACT level
requirements) are effectively implemented with minimal facility
resources.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that some area sources may face
distinct challenges from some major sources but disagrees with the
commenter that the Agency failed to adequately identify and account for
the differences between major and area sources. The EPA establishes
MACT standards pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) using data
from the best performing sources. The EPA does not consider cost or
burden when establishing the minimum level of stringency required by
CAA section 112(d)(3) for initial MACT standards for a source category;
rather, the EPA does so when determining whether requiring reductions
beyond the minimum level of stringency is appropriate pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2). Where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard, the EPA may promulgate work practice standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(h).
In lieu of MACT standards, the EPA may establish GACT standards for
area sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). GACT includes
commercially available methods, practices, and techniques that are
appropriate for application considering economic impacts and the
technical capabilities of the affected sources.\28\ As such, consistent
with the EPA's obligations under CAA section 112(d)(5) and the Agency's
obligation to complete a technology review pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), the EPA reviewed similar NESHAP, assessed existing
technologies and practices, and considered other relevant information
to identify potential control options to consider when proposing and
finalizing revisions to the CMAS NESHAP. Commenters did not present
adequate evidence to challenge the EPA's position that many CMAS CMPUs
subject to GACT standards resemble process units regulated under MACT
standards in the HON, the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
NESHAP (MON), and the Polyether Polyols (PEPO) Production NESHAP. In
addition, the EPA is aware that many of the affected CMAS CMPUs are
synthetic area sources that have taken emissions limitations or
installed federally enforceable control devices to remain below the
major source emissions threshold of emitting fewer than 10 tpy of a
single HAP and fewer than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. If not for
the emissions limits or control devices, these affected CMAS likely
would be major sources of HAP and thus subject to major source NESHAP.
Thus, the EPA maintains that CMAS CMPUs operate similarly to CMPUs
subject to major source chemical sector rules such as the HON, MON, and
PEPO NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Sen. Rep. No. 101-228 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the EPA considered costs for all of the proposed standards
and found that the costs were comparable or less than those the Agency
deemed reasonable for organic HAP standards for other chemical sector
rulemakings such as the MON, Ethylene Production NESHAP, and PEPO
Production NESHAP. Additionally, the EPA compared the cost of complying
with the final rule to the annual revenue of an affected entity and
found that the cost-to-sales ratio was approximately 0.06 percent (see
the document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical Manufacturing
Area Sources in the docket for this rulemaking). The EPA notes that
while the commenters are correct that area sources may have fewer
resources than major sources, operations at area sources are often
smaller and less complex (e.g., there are fewer components in organic
HAP service to monitor) than those at major sources, and so owners and
operators will need comparatively fewer resources to comply with new
regulatory requirements.
Further, where the EPA finds it reasonable to establish or revise
standards, the level of stringency of a GACT standard may equal the
level of stringency of a MACT standard. For example, the GACT standards
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD, which is the polyvinyl chlorides and
copolymers area source NESHAP, require sources to meet the major source
MACT requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH for polyvinyl
chlorides and copolymers for equipment leaks. Further, the EPA notes
that the GACT standards for process vent emissions for the area source
PVC manufacturers are more stringent than the process vent emission
limits for major source PVC
[[Page 16511]]
manufacturers. The proposal preamble as well as the EPA's technical
analyses (those referenced in sections IV.A through IV.C of the
proposal preamble, and the document entitled Updated Impact
Calculations for the CMAS Categories--Final, which is in the docket for
this rulemaking) outline the basis for the Agency's conclusions that
the final standards are both reasonable and cost-effective for area
sources regulated under the CMAS NESHAP.
Comment: Commenters asserted that the EPA violated the CAA by only
setting standards for area sources that use, generate, or produce one
of 15 of the 30 urban HAP to produce a material or family of materials
described by NAICS code 325. These commenters argued that the EPA must
finalize standards for all area sources within the listed CMAS
categories.
A commenter stated that when the EPA listed the nine CMAS
categories, the Agency did not limit those listings to sources within
those categories that use, generate, or produce one of 15 of the 30
urban HAP, and none of the listing documents limit the CMAS categories
to any specific HAP. Additionally, the commenter pointed out that the
EPA explained as part of the 2009 CMAS rulemaking that while the Agency
limited the final standards to the emissions points that emit one of
the 15 urban HAP and were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the EPA was not ``prohibit[ed] . . .
from regulating other [hazardous air pollutants] emitted from area
sources.''
The commenter continued that the EPA is not prohibited from setting
standards for all CMAS but is required to set standards that apply to
all sources in the listed source categories. Referencing CAA section
112(c)(1), the commenter claimed that it refers to all HAP, not just
the 30 urban HAP. As such, the commenter argued that the EPA can no
more set standards for only a subset of area sources than it could for
major sources. In addition, the commenter noted that the EPA listed
some area source categories alongside categories that are not limited
to sources that use, generate, or produce specific urban HAP and
provided the example of area source hazardous waste combustors.
To that point, the commenter expressed that the EPA's prior failure
to regulate all area sources within the listed CMAS categories resulted
in facilities operating unregulated by NESHAP standards. They said that
there are many facilities emitting known and unknown HAP that are
unlawfully evading regulation and that these facilities are
particularly dangerous when considered in the aggregate and combined
with major sources. The commenter said that of the 1,300 potentially
unregulated area sources within the listed CMAS categories that the EPA
identified as part of the 2009 rulemaking, 127 are in Texas and
approximately half of those facilities are concentrated in the Greater
Houston area. They asserted that areas with concentrations of
unregulated area source chemical manufacturers often overlap with
cancer risk and other health risk hotspots.
Also, the commenter added that it is critical that the EPA set
standards for all area sources within the listed CMAS categories now
because major sources may attempt to reclassify as area sources (or
subdivide and reclassify as area sources) to evade HAP regulations.
Finally, the commenter identified several facilities that the
existing standards do not cover. The commenter noted that these sources
emit approximately 75 tons per year (tpy) of methanol, 55 tpy of
styrene, 35 tpy of ethylene glycol, 20 tpy of hydrogen chloride, 15 tpy
of formaldehyde, and many tons of other HAP. The commenter stated that
based on their review of area sources identified by the EPA's
Integrated Compliance Information System for Air database, when
compared to CMAS facilities regulated by the CMAS NESHAP, unregulated
area source chemical manufacturers reported nearly all the emissions of
certain HAP including ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, xylene, HCl,
styrene, and methanol.
The commenter referenced the 2020 National Emissions Inventory and
said that it included more than 700 facilities within the relevant
NAICS codes that have emissions less than 10 tpy of one HAP and less
than 25 tpy of all HAP. They said that of these facilities, more than
250 do not report emissions of the 15 HAP covered by the existing CMAS
standards but still report approximately 481 tpy of HAP emissions. The
commenter also provided several example facilities emitting HAP that do
not appear to be currently subject to any NESHAP.
The commenter recommended that the EPA conduct a comprehensive
analysis to identify all unregulated area source chemical
manufacturers, assess whether the unregulated area sources present a
threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment, and set
strong standards that leave no area sources unregulated.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Agency has
not fulfilled our CAA obligations to the CMAS categories pursuant to
CAA sections 112(c)(1) and 112(k)(3)(B), which set forth the
requirements for the Urban Air Toxics program. CAA section 112(c)(1)
states that the Administrator shall ``list categories and subcategories
of major sources and area sources (listed under [CAA section
112(c)(3)])'' of the HAP listed pursuant to CAA section 112(b). CAA
section 112(c)(3) states that the Administrator shall list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources such that ``90 percent of
the area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants that
present the greatest threat to public health'' are subject to
regulation under CAA section 112.
As the commenter identifies, the EPA listed the nine CMAS
categories and set standards for CMPUs emitting at least one of 15
urban HAP (see table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP) and producing a material or
family of materials described by NAICS code 325 in the CMAS NESHAP to
meet these obligations, as well as those of CAA section 112(k)(3)(B).
While the commenter is correct that the EPA is not prohibited from
establishing standards for other HAP emitted by CMAS, the CAA does not
require the EPA to do so. In addition, the EPA notes that the Agency
did not propose to expand the applicability of the CMAS NESHAP to
include all CMAS within the nine affected source categories. It would
not be appropriate for the EPA to finalize an applicability change that
could potentially subject hundreds or thousands of facilities to the
CMAS NESHAP for the first time without presenting the regulated
community an opportunity to comment. The purpose of this action is to
fulfill the EPA's statutory review obligations to conduct a technology
review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), and this final rule satisfies
those mandatory review obligations.
b. Pressure Vessels
Comment: A commenter opposed the proposed requirement to operate a
pressure vessel as a closed system that vents through a closed vent
system to a control device. The commenter stated that pressure vessels
are designed to not vent during filling and argued that the proposed
requirements are not necessary, are not cost-effective, would not
reduce emissions, and do not represent GACT. As an example, the
commenter said that one facility would need to install a flare at an
estimated cost of $3,000,000 to control emissions from their pressure
vessels even though the facility has not reported any emissions or
releases from the affected pressure vessels in the past five years.
[[Page 16512]]
The commenter continued that the existing Occupation Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management requirements that
determine the layers of protection needed for accidental releases
already adequately control such releases.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the requirement
to operate a pressure vessel as a closed system that vents through a
closed vent system to a control device does not represent GACT. As the
commenter states, pressure vessels are designed not to vent during
filling so releases from a PRD during filling would reflect irregular
operation, and the EPA maintains that these emissions should be
controlled given the potential for high volume releases. Additionally,
prior to this final action, the definition of storage tank in 40 CFR
63.11502(b) only exempted pressure vessels designed to operate in
excess of 204.9 kPa and without emissions to the atmosphere. As such,
the EPA expects that most pressure vessels affected by the addition of
the standards at 40 CFR 63.11497(e) and table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP
already should have in place preventative measures as well as capture
and containment systems capable of preventing emissions from a pressure
vessel's PRD(s) releasing to atmosphere. In situations where a facility
must vent a pressure vessel to a control device, the EPA anticipates
that most facilities will rely on existing APCDs rather than purchasing
and installing a new APCD, as the EPA expects emissions from pressure
vessels to be irregular and infrequent, as identified by the
commenter's example. For additional details on the EPA's expected
emissions reductions and cost estimates, see the document entitled
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Pressure
Vessels Associated with Processes Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, in the
docket for this rulemaking.\29\ In addition, refer to the document
entitled Updated Impact Calculations for the CMAS Categories--Final,
also in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the requirements of other regulations are outside the scope
of this action, the EPA emphasizes that OSHA's Process Safety
Management provisions do not categorically limit the applicability of
or need for NESHAP requirements.
Comment: A commenter pointed out that some pressure vessels that
store regulated chemicals are inside containment areas or partially
buried such that monitoring the vessel's surface per EPA Method 21 is
not possible. The commenter added that some of these vessels are
double-walled tanks designed with an additional external shell outside
of the pressure vessel shell (i.e., a tank within a shell). As such,
the commenter recommended that the EPA require monitoring only for
those points on the pressure vessel that are readily accessible and not
unsafe-to-monitor.
Response: The EPA proposed to include provisions for exempting
equipment that are unsafe or difficult/inaccessible to monitor from the
proposed pressure vessel requirements by referencing 40 CFR 63.168(h)
and (i) (for valves in G/V and LL service) and 40 CFR 63.174(f) and (h)
(for connectors in G/V and LL service). However, because the
requirements are the same, for clarity the EPA is revising the final
rule to specify that equipment meeting the criteria specified in 40 CFR
63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(A) and (C) (for valves in LL or G/V service) and 40
CFR 63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(A) and (E) (for connectors in LL or G/V service)
are exempt from the monitoring requirements for pressure vessels.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and decisions for the
revisions pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5) for organic HAP?
The EPA evaluated all comments on the Agency's proposed amendments
to include standards for pressure vessels, PRDs, and closed vent
systems containing bypass lines. The rule did not previously regulate
these emissions sources, and the EPA considered whether control of
these sources would be cost effective and feasible for CMAS. Based on
the analyses discussed in section IV.B of the proposal preamble, the
document entitled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard
Analysis for Pressure Vessels Associated with Processes Subject to the
CMAS NESHAP, the document entitled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT
Standards Analysis for Pressure Relief Devices Associated with
Processes Subject to the CMAS NESHAP, and the document entitled Updated
Impact Calculations for the CMAS Categories--Final, all of which are in
the docket for this rulemaking, as well as the prevalence of similar
standards in multiple other chemical sector rulemakings, the EPA finds
the requirements reasonable and cost-effective for CMAS to
implement.\30\ \31\ While the EPA received several comments on the
proposed standards, the commenters did not present any information that
led us to change our proposed determinations, and the Agency is
finalizing the standards as proposed. However, the EPA is changing the
pressure vessel standards to clarify, based on comment, that the unsafe
and difficult/inaccessible monitoring provisions apply to equipment on
pressure vessels. Section IV.A.3 of this preamble and in the document
entitled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area
Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking, contain the
relevant comments and the EPA's specific responses and rationale for
the Agency's final decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0032.
\31\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Technology Review for the CMAS Categories
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the CMAS
categories?
Based on the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the
Agency proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) changes to the CMAS NESHAP
for heat exchange systems, process vents, and equipment leaks. The EPA
proposed no change under CAA section 112(d)(6) for storage tanks,
transfer operations, and wastewater streams. Additionally, with respect
to fenceline monitoring, the EPA proposed that none of the 15 urban HAP
regulated on table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP either had established
fenceline monitoring methods or were sufficiently prevalent across the
nine CMAS categories to serve as reasonable surrogates for fugitive
emissions. Also, with respect to flaring for compliance with the
process vent standards, the EPA proposed that it was not cost effective
to update CMAS flares with the suite of monitoring and operational
requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671. The EPA provides a
summary of the Agency's findings, as proposed, in this section of the
preamble.
a. Heat Exchange Systems
In the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the Agency
identified one development in practices and processes for CMAS heat
exchange systems: the use of the Modified El Paso Method for monitoring
for leaks from heat exchange systems. The EPA determined that this
method is more effective at identifying leaks and measures a larger
number of compounds than the methods previously required in
[[Page 16513]]
the CMAS NESHAP. After evaluating State and Federal regulations
requiring the Modified El Paso Method, as well as emissions data
collected for the Refinery Sector risk and technology review (RTR) (see
section II.D of the proposal preamble and the Refinery Sector RTR
rulemaking docket), pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) the EPA proposed
to require the use of the Modified El Paso Method at 40 CFR 63.11499(d)
and item 1.c of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP--by reference to the HON (40
CFR 63.104(a) and (f) through (l))--for both new and existing heat
exchange systems with flow rates greater than or equal to 8,000
gpm.\32\ The EPA proposed a leak definition of 6.2 ppmv of total
strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas
to further reduce HAP emissions from these heat exchange systems and
proposed to disallow delay of repair of leaks if the measured
concentration meets or exceeds 62 ppmv. Based on an evaluation of
incremental HAP cost effectiveness to increase the leak monitoring
frequency, the EPA proposed no changes to the monitoring frequency
previously required by the CMAS NESHAP for heat exchange systems (i.e.,
monthly monitoring for the first six months following startup of a
source and quarterly monitoring thereafter). The EPA also proposed to
require re-monitoring at the monitoring location where owners and
operators identified a leak to ensure that they fixed any leaks found.
Further, the EPA proposed that none of these proposed requirements for
heat exchange systems apply to heat exchange systems that have a
maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per minute or less.
Additionally, the EPA proposed that owners and operators may use the
current leak monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems at 40
CFR 63.104(b) in lieu of using the Modified El Paso Method, provided
that 99 percent by weight or more of the organic compounds that could
leak into the heat exchange system are water soluble and have a Henry's
Law Constant less than 5.0E-6 atmospheres-cubic meters per mole at 25
degrees Celsius. Finally, the EPA proposed that owners and operators
may not inject or dispose of water in a heat exchange system if the
water is wastewater as defined in 40 CFR 63.11502. Refer to section
IV.C.2 of the proposal preamble for a summary of the EPA's rationale
for selecting the proposed leak method, leak definition, and limitation
on delay of repairs, as well as the Agency's rationale for retaining
the previous monitoring schedule. For a detailed discussion of the
EPA's findings, see the document entitled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Heat Exchange Systems that Emit
Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Heat
Exchange Systems Associated with Chemical Manufacturing Process Units
at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
\33\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Process Vents
As part of the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the
Agency investigated the basis for the concentration threshold of ``at
least 50 ppmv metal HAP'' included in the definition of ``metal HAP
process vent.'' The EPA added this threshold to the definition in 40
CFR 63.11502(b) as part of the 2012 reconsideration of the NESHAP in
response to commenters arguing that it was necessary to better
represent GACT as their sulfuric acid regeneration units already
achieved over 95 percent reduction in metal HAP.\34\ However, the
Agency did not at that time conduct any analysis to justify the change.
As such, the EPA proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to remove
the 50 ppmv concentration threshold from the definition of ``metal HAP
process vent'' to ensure that process vents emitting metal HAP were
subject to control. See section IV.C.3 of the proposal preamble for a
summary of the EPA's rationale for proposing to remove the
concentration threshold from the definition of ``metal HAP process
vent.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 77 FR 75740 (Dec. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Equipment Leaks
In the EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories, the Agency
identified three control options for further reducing emissions from
equipment leaks at CMAS facilities. See section IV.C.1 of the proposal
preamble for a summary of the three options. Based on the EPA's
evaluation of the feasibility, costs, and emission reductions of each
option, the Agency proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise
the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6) such that owners and operators
of new and existing affected sources with equipment in organic HAP
service must conduct annual leak detection monitoring of all pumps in
LL service, valves in G/V service and LL service, and connectors in G/V
service and LL service by following EPA Method 21, with certain
exceptions (e.g., pumps, valves, and connectors that are unsafe to
monitor). The EPA also proposed at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6) that owners
and operators must consider a leak from any of these types of equipment
``detected'' if the instrument reading equals or exceeds 10,000 ppmv
and that owners and operators must make a first repair attempt no later
than five calendar days after a leak is detected. Also, the EPA
proposed that owners and operators must repair equipment as soon as
practicable but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected, except as allowed in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for delay of
repair at 40 CFR 63.171. Additionally, the EPA proposed the
incorporation at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(6) of the HON LDAR requirements for
compressors, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
equipment in HL service, closed vent systems and control devices, and
agitators in G/V or LL service.\35\ For a detailed discussion of the
EPA's findings, see the document entitled Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Equipment Leaks that Emit Ethylene
Oxide and Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks from
Chemical Manufacturing Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the
CMAS NESHAP.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The HON LDAR requirements for compressors, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, equipment in HL
service, closed vent systems and control devices, and agitators in
G/V or LL service appear respectively at 40 CFR 63.164, 40 CFR
63.166, 40 CFR 63.167, 40 CFR 63.169, 40 CFR 63.172, and 40 CFR
63.173.
\36\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How did the technology review change for the CMAS categories?
Apart from a minor reference adjustment to the proposed
requirements for heat exchange systems in organic HAP service, the EPA
is finalizing the results of the technology review pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) for the CMAS categories as proposed without changes.
The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and item 1.c of table 8 to the
CMAS NESHAP to remove the reference to 40 CFR 63.104(k) and instead
revising 40 CFR 63.11499(d)(6) to provide similar language prohibiting
owners and operators from injecting or disposing of wastewater via any
heat exchange system in an affected CMPU.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding the portions of the
[[Page 16514]]
EPA's technology review for the CMAS categories related to heat
exchange systems, equipment leaks, and flares. The EPA did not receive
many substantive comments on the other amendments discussed in this
section IV.C of this preamble. Based on the comments the EPA received
on the proposed technology review provisions, the Agency is finalizing,
as proposed, to require monitoring via the Modified El Paso Method for
heat exchange systems with one minor change. The EPA also is
finalizing, as proposed, an annual instrument monitoring program for
equipment leaks and the Agency's decision not to apply the suite of
operational and monitoring requirements outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and
40 CFR 63.671 to flares in organic HAP service at CMAS facilities.
While the EPA received comments on the Agency's determination that
there were no cost-effective developments for storage tanks and
wastewater, commenters did not provide any additional information that
suggested our analyses were incorrect. Therefore, the EPA is not
finalizing any changes to the requirements in the CMAS NESHAP for
storage tanks and wastewater at this time. The document entitled
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area
Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking, contains the
comment summaries and the EPA's responses to these issues as well as to
additional issues raised regarding the Agency's technology review's
proposed requirements for the CMAS categories. Notably, the EPA did not
receive any comments on the Agency's proposal arguing that there are no
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the GACT standards for transfer operations.
a. Heat Exchange Systems
Comment: Some commenters objected to the EPA's proposal to replace
the existing delay of repair options in 40 CFR 63.104(e) (as referenced
in table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP) with those in 40 CFR 63.104(j), which
only allow delay of repair for heat exchange systems in organic HAP
service if the leak is below an action level of 62 ppmv (as methane) in
the stripping gas. The commenters argued that the proposed option will
likely lead to facilities with smaller recirculation rates emitting
more HAP because they may be required to isolate equipment or to shut
down process equipment as opposed to calculating the emissions from a
continued leak and delaying repair if they are less than the emissions
from a shutdown event. In addition, the commenters argued that the
proposed provisions impose a requirement to fix leaks in scenarios that
will result in unnecessary emissions and unwarranted safety risks. The
commenters requested that the EPA not finalize the proposed delay of
repair requirements and instead keep the existing requirements as they
provide flexibility for facilities while minimizing environmental
impact and safety risks.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' request to not
finalize the incorporation of the delay of repair provisions at 40 CFR
63.104(j) via 40 CFR 63.11499(d) and item 1.c. of table 8 to the CMAS
NESHAP. First, the commenters appear to have misunderstood the EPA's
proposal to replace the existing delay of repair options in 40 CFR
63.104(e) (as referenced in table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP) with those in
40 CFR 63.104(j). In contrast to the commenters' interpretation, the
EPA's proposed rule text at 40 CFR 63.104(j), which the Agency is
finalizing, does allow delay of repair until the next scheduled
shutdown of the heat exchange system, if the repair is technically
infeasible without a shutdown and the total strippable hydrocarbon
concentration or total hydrocarbon mass emissions rate is initially and
remains less than the delay of repair action level for all monitoring
periods during the delay of repair.\37\ Second, the final CMAS NESHAP
only requires monitoring via the Modified El Paso Method for heat
exchange systems with flow rates greater than or equal to 8,000 gpm,
and as previously mentioned, the final requirements allow owners and
operators of these heat exchange systems to delay repair until the next
scheduled shutdown under certain circumstances. Moreover, heat exchange
systems with flow rates less than 8,000 gpm are subject to 40 CFR
63.11495(b), which requires owners and operators to develop and operate
in accordance with a heat exchange system inspection plan that
describes the inspections owners and operators must perform at least
once per quarter.\38\ As such, the EPA expects that the final
requirements already minimize the burden to facilities with heat
exchange systems with smaller recirculation rates as they will not be
subject to monitoring via the Modified El Paso Method nor the
associated repair requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The delay of repair action level is a total strippable
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62
ppmv or, for heat exchange systems with a recirculation rate of
10,000 gallons per minute or less, the delay of repair action level
is a total hydrocarbon mass emissions rate (as methane) of 1.8 kg/
hr.
\38\ Inspections as required by 40 CFR 63.11495(b) must provide
evidence of hydrocarbons in the cooling water and may include checks
for visible floating hydrocarbon on the water, hydrocarbon odor,
discolored water, and/or chemical addition rates. Owners and
operators of these heat exchange systems must also perform repairs
to eliminate the leak within 45 calendar days after indications of
the leak are identified but may delay the repair if a reason is
documented in the next semiannual compliance report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even considering the minimum flow rate of 8,000 gpm, the EPA
believes it is important to address sufficiently large leaks (that are
at least an order of magnitude larger than the leak definition) quickly
given the potential for large amounts of emissions and a facility's
general duty to minimize emissions. Notably, the EPA determined that
large leaks are also significantly more cost-effective to fix than
small leaks and that the final requirements for heat exchange systems
in organic HAP service with flow rates greater than or equal to 8,000
gpm are cost-effective and reasonable when considering a distribution
of potential leaks, not just those an order of magnitude larger than
the leak definition. For additional details on the expected emissions
reductions and costs estimated by the EPA, see the document entitled
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(5) GACT Standard Analysis for Heat
Exchange Systems that Emit Ethylene Oxide and Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems Associated with Chemical
Manufacturing Process Units at Area Sources Subject to the CMAS NESHAP,
which is in the docket for this rulemaking.\39\ In addition, see the
document entitled Updated Impact Calculations for the CMAS Categories--
Final, also in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters requested that the EPA amend the inclusion of
the language at 40 CFR 63.104 to clarify that the rule will not require
owners and operators to monitor regulated heat exchange systems using
water sampling methods or a surrogate indicator pursuant to 40 CFR
63.104(b) or (c) if the heat exchange system is monitored for leaks
according to 40 CFR 63.104(g) (i.e., via the Modified El Paso Method).
The commenters pointed out that the current language does not allow
sources to stop monitoring using the methods in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c)
once they have begun using the Modified El Paso method. In addition,
the commenters noted that neither 40 CFR 63.104 nor the referencing
language in table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP provide a means of ceasing
compliance with 40 CFR
[[Page 16515]]
63.104(d) once a facility begins complying with 40 CFR 63.104(h)
through (j).
Response: The EPA agrees with commenters that the final rule should
allow sources to stop monitoring using methods in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or
(c) once they have begun monitoring using the Modified El Paso method.
However, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that the proposed 40 CFR
63.11499(d) did not permit sources to discontinue using water sampling
methods or a surrogate indicator once they begin monitoring via the
Modified El Paso method. The EPA also disagrees that the proposed
provisions did not offer a mechanism to end compliance with the repair
requirements at 40 CFR 63.104(d) after a facility begins complying with
the repair requirements at 40 CFR 63.104(h) through (j). Under the
final rule at 40 CFR 63.11499(a), owners and operators must follow the
requirements outlined in table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP, unless certain
exceptions apply. According to item 1.c of table 8 to the CMAS NESHAP,
once the compliance dates have passed, the provisions in items 1.a and
1.b (i.e., referring to the current monitoring and repair requirements
in 40 CFR 63.104(b) through (e)) will no longer apply. Instead, owners
and operators then must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR
63.104(f) through (j) and (l). Therefore, no revisions to the
requirements are necessary in response to the commenter's request. The
EPA is finalizing the proposed rule text without changes, except that
in the final rule, the EPA is removing the reference to 40 CFR
63.104(k) and rephrasing 40 CFR 63.11499(d)(7) such that after the
compliance dates specified in the final 40 CFR 63.11494(i), owners and
operators may not inject water into or dispose of water in a heat
exchange system if the water is considered wastewater as defined in 40
CFR 63.11502(b).
b. Equipment Leaks
Comment: A commenter generally supported the EPA's proposed CAA
section 112(d)(6) practices for reducing equipment leaks from equipment
in organic HAP service (i.e., annual instrument monitoring of
connectors in G/V and LL service, valves in G/V and LL service, and
pumps in LL service via EPA Method 21 with a leak definition of 10,000
ppmv and following the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for
compressors, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
and agitators). However, another commenter contended that the proposed
instrument monitoring program was inadequate because the EPA failed to
consider certain developments including fenceline monitoring, low-leak
and leakless equipment, area monitoring, and ``enhanced LDAR''
programs. The commenter argued that although the EPA considered optical
gas imaging (OGI) and leak detection and sensor networks (LDSNs) as
developments, the basis for the EPA's rejection was insufficient. The
commenter suggested that the EPA could require OGI in conjunction with
the existing leak detection practices and processes directed at lower-
level leaks given the EPA has previously stated that OGI is less
effective at finding smaller leaks. In response to the EPA's statements
that OGI cannot observe all chemical compounds, the commenter asserted
that OGI does not need to observe all chemicals emitted by CMAS to be
an effective tool in identifying leaks.
With respect to LDSNs, the commenter suggested that the EPA has
sufficient information to require the practice given what the commenter
characterizes as the EPA's collaborative role in developing and testing
the technology. The commenter said that the EPA could develop LDSNs for
CMAS and pointed out that the EPA has recently approved the use of an
LDSN as an Alternative Means of Emission Limitation (AMEL) at the Flint
Hills Resources West Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The commenter also referenced comments on the 2023 HON and 2024
PEPO Production NESHAP RTR proposals and stated that they contain
additional information on low-leak and leakless equipment, area
monitoring, including components of ``enhanced LDAR programs,'' OGI,
and LDSN.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for and
opposition to the proposed instrument monitoring program for equipment
in organic HAP service. However, the EPA disagrees with the commenter
that the Agency failed to account for developments in equipment leak
controls pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA assessed feasible
options for additional control measures and incorporated those into the
proposed rule where they demonstrated cost-effective emissions
reductions and could be reasonably implemented.
With respect to OGI, as stated in the technical analysis, the EPA
maintains that CMAS emit a wide variety of chemicals and that OGI
cannot observe all of them.\40\ While the EPA agrees with the commenter
that OGI does not necessarily have to observe all chemicals to identify
a leak, the CMAS NESHAP covers a wide variety of sources using hundreds
of different chemicals. OGI cameras can detect only compounds that have
a peak in the spectral range of the filter on the OGI camera (generally
around 3.2 to 3.4 micron for cameras used to detect hydrocarbons).
While some of the compounds of interest do have a peak in this range,
several of the organic compounds listed in table 1 to the CMAS NESHAP
have very weak peaks or no peaks in the spectral range common to OGI
camera filters, making it extremely difficult for an OGI camera to see
these compounds. For example, chloroform's response in this spectral
range makes it almost impossible to detect with an OGI camera. For
those compounds that an OGI camera can observe, the detection range of
the camera varies, and some compounds must be present in high
quantities before being detectable. As such, the EPA maintains that the
proposed (and finalized) instrument monitoring program for equipment in
organic HAP service is most appropriate for detecting equipment leaks
from CMAS CMPUs at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to LDSNs, as stated in the technical analysis
document, the EPA does not have the information necessary to develop
appropriate monitoring requirements that could be incorporated into the
final rule.\41\ The CMAS NESHAP covers a wide variety of operations
that involve numerous different HAP, and while the EPA did participate
in developing and testing LDSNs, the EPA recognizes that consent
decrees and AMELs are often specific to a facility and not necessarily
applicable to the wider source category (or source categories in the
case of the CMAS NESHAP). Additionally, some AMELs, like the one
mentioned by the commenter, are in use for the first time and need
further study before the EPA can apply the AMEL's approach more
broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the additional information provided by the
commenter via their comments on the 2023 HON and 2024 PEPO Production
NESHAP RTR proposals (which the commenter submitted to the docket for
this action), the EPA notes that the final instrument monitoring
program for this action is less stringent than the instrument
monitoring programs in the HON and the PEPO Production NESHAP. It would
not be necessary to use low-leak and
[[Page 16516]]
leakless equipment to achieve compliance with the final CMAS management
practices, and low-leak and leakless equipment are typically more
expensive than standard components. As such, the EPA did not evaluate a
requirement for low-leak or leakless equipment, as standard equipment
should be sufficient to meet the proposed, and final, provisions.
With respect to area monitoring, the CMAS NESHAP regulates a wide
variety of operations and sources, and the emissions are variable, both
in expected compounds and magnitude. Based on that variability, the EPA
does not have sufficient data (e.g., designation of monitored compounds
for different source categories and different operations, appropriate
action levels, and spacing of monitors) to establish an area monitoring
program for the wide variety of operations affected by the CMAS NESHAP.
Also, as the commenter noted, ``enhanced LDAR programs'' contain
many of the requirements that the EPA proposed and is finalizing in
this action. The EPA explained earlier in this response why the Agency
chose not to include other elements, such as leakless and low-emission
equipment. Owners and operators may need to add other elements of
``enhanced LDAR programs'' to improve an existing LDAR program, but
because the CMAS NESHAP did not previously require instrument
monitoring for LDAR, the EPA is unable to assess at this time whether
additional guidance is necessary.
c. Flares
Comment: Some commenters supported the EPA's decision not to apply
the suite of operational and monitoring requirements outlined in 40 CFR
63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671 to flares in organic HAP service at CMAS
facilities. Commenters noted that although the EPA has incorporated the
revised flare requirements into several recent rules, the EPA has done
so selectively based on the flare characteristics of those industries.
Additionally, the commenter noted that while the EPA has determined
that the general provisions at 40 CFR 63.11 cannot ensure 98 percent
control of organic HAP, the GACT process vent and storage tank
standards applicable to CMAS CMPUs do not require 98 percent control,
and the costs to apply the revised standards outweigh any incremental
emissions reductions.
On the other hand, another commenter argued that the EPA should
include the suite of flare operational and monitoring requirements in
the Refinery Sector NESHAP (outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR
63.671) in the CMAS NESHAP because some process vent or storage tank
standards require control efficiencies that are greater than what the
flare standards in 40 CFR 63.11 can guarantee. The commenter noted that
the EPA assumed a baseline control efficiency for flares operating
under the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11 of 85.9 percent and pointed out
that the only CMAS standards below the assumed baseline control
efficiency are those for existing batch process vents and periods of
startup and shutdown for continuous process vents. The commenter
referenced the EPA's proposal, noting that when the EPA promulgated the
original CMAS NESHAP in 2009, available data indicated that the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.11 would enable flares to achieve 98 percent
control of emissions from process vents and storage tanks. The
commenter argued that the EPA implied the Agency would not have
proposed or finalized flaring as a compliance option in the original
rulemaking if the Agency knew that sources could not reliably achieve
the assumed 98 percent control level underlying those provisions. The
commenter urged the EPA to use the same rationale used in the HON and
Group I Polymer and Resins NESHAP (where the flare requirements were
updated under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)) to update the CMAS
standards with the suite of flare operational and monitoring
requirements outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for and
opposition to the requirement that owners and operators operate CMAS
flares pursuant to the requirements outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40
CFR 63.671. The EPA agrees with commenters that none of the process
vent or storage tank standards for non-flare control devices require a
reduction of organic HAP emissions by at least 98 percent by weight,
whether through removal or destruction; those standards only require 85
to 95 percent control by weight. The EPA also concurs with the
commenter that flares complying with 40 CFR 63.11 have an assumed
control efficiency greater than some of the required non-flare APCD
control efficiencies. However, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's
assertion that the Agency implied that if we were aware that flares
complying with 40 CFR 63.11 were not achieving 98 percent control
efficiency, then we would not have allowed compliance by use of a
flare. GACT standards consider relevant factors such as cost and burden
to facilities, whereas MACT standards established under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) do not. The EPA revised the major source flare
requirements identified by the commenter pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) to ensure compliance with the MACT floor that the EPA
had established in previous iterations of those rules. However, the
CMAS NESHAP does not include MACT standards where the EPA identified
potential underperformance requiring updates to those standards, such
as changes to the flare requirements in other NESHAP. As such, for the
EPA's review of the existing flare standards and practices, the Agency
relied on the technology review authority of CAA section 112(d)(6) and
considered the development of the suite of operational and monitoring
requirements outlined in 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671, consistent
with our typical approaches. It would be speculative to opine on
whether the EPA would have established different standards in the
original rulemaking if the EPA were aware of the costs of ensuring
flares achieve 98 percent control efficiency. Nonetheless, at this
time, the EPA considers the costs and burden of operating CMAS flares
pursuant to the flare requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (i.e.,
40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671) unreasonable and not cost-effective
for CMAS. The EPA notes that the commenters did not provide sufficient
information for the EPA to consider revising this proposed, and now
finalized, determination.
Comment: A commenter argued that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not
allow the EPA to dismiss developments and refuse to update standards
based on cost. The commenter asserted that the D.C. Circuit has
recognized that developments are a core requirement of CAA section
112(d)(6) and that it is unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious for the
EPA to propose not to incorporate the flare monitoring and operational
requirements at 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671 into the CMAS NESHAP
because it ignores statutory purposes that the Agency is required to
consider pursuant to NRDC.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the Agency has ignored the
statutory purpose of CAA section 112(d)(6) and that we are prohibited
from considering costs when determining whether additional controls are
``necessary'' when conducting a section 112(d)(6) review. The D.C.
Circuit has repeatedly held to the contrary.\42\ The purpose of
[[Page 16517]]
CAA section 112(d)(6) is to periodically review and update emissions
standards as necessary. The EPA did not propose any changes to the
level of control necessary to comply with the process vent and storage
tank standards, nor did the Agency propose that flares are no longer a
compliance option for those standards, as established in the original
rulemaking. Consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6),
the EPA reviewed applying the monitoring and operational requirements
at 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671 because those requirements represent
a development in the control technology. However, reviews conducted
under CAA section 112(d)(6) are not cost-blind. Considering the costs
of operating a flare in accordance with 40 CFR 63.670 and 40 CFR 63.671
and other relevant factors, the EPA determined that it was not
reasonable or cost-effective to revise the monitoring or operational
requirements for CMAS flares in this final action. As such, the EPA is
not finalizing any changes to the final rule in response to this
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, e.g., Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, 716 F.3d at 67; Nat.
Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1081-82 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(holding that EPA's consideration of costs does not invalidate the
Agency's determination under Section 112(d)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and decisions for the
technology review?
The EPA's technology review focused on the identification and
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the 2012 reconsideration.\43\
Specifically, the EPA's technology review focused on the existing GACT
standards for the various emissions sources in the CMAS categories,
including heat exchange systems, storage tanks, process vents, transfer
operations, wastewater, and equipment leaks. In the proposal, the EPA
identified cost-effective and feasible developments for CMAS heat
exchange systems, process vents, and equipment leaks, and the Agency
proposed to revise the standards for these three emissions sources
under the technology review. The EPA did not identify cost-effective
and feasible developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies for transfer operations, storage tanks, and wastewater.
The proposed rule and the supporting materials in the docket materials
for this rulemaking contain further information regarding the
technology review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 77 FR 75740 (Dec. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the public comment period, the EPA received several comments
on the Agency's proposed determinations for the technology review. The
document entitled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking,
contains the comments and the EPA's specific responses and rationale
for the Agency's final decisions. Commenters did not present
information that led us to change our proposed developments for CMAS
heat exchange systems, process vents, and equipment leaks, and the EPA
is finalizing revised standards for these three emissions sources, as
proposed under the technology review. Commenters did not present any
information that led us to change our proposed determinations under CAA
section 112(d)(6) for transfer operations, storage tanks, wastewater,
and flares, and the EPA is finalizing the Agency's determination that
no changes to these standards are warranted.
C. Other Amendments to the CMAS NESHAP
1. What other amendments did we propose for the CMAS categories?
The EPA proposed provisions at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(1)(iv), 40 CFR
63.11497(g)(1)(iv), and 40 CFR 63.11501(b) and (d) that require owners
or operators to submit electronic copies of certain required NOCS,
performance test reports, and periodic reports through the EPA's CDX
using CEDRI. The EPA also proposed two narrow circumstances in which
owners or operators may seek extensions to the deadline if conditions
outside of their control prevent reporting within five business days of
the reporting deadline. The EPA proposed that an extension may be
warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports. The EPA proposed that an extension also may be warranted due
to a force majeure event, such as an act of nature, act of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
Also, the EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(2)(i)(E)(ii) that
owners or operators conduct performance testing once every five years
to demonstrate compliance with emission limits for certain process
vents and storage tanks if a source routes emissions to a non-flare
control device. Specifically, the EPA proposed removing the design
evaluation option at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 of the CMAS
NESHAP and the engineering assessment option at 40 CFR
63.11496(f)(3)(ii) and instead requiring ongoing performance tests at
proposed 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(iv), (4), and (5), and 40 CFR
63.11496(g)(1)(iii) for owners and operators using a control device
other than a flare to comply with the emission limits and other
requirements for batch and continuous process vents and at 40 CFR
63.11497(g)(1)(iii) for owners and operators using a control device
other than a flare to comply with the emission limits and other
requirements for storage tanks.
In addition, the EPA proposed to eliminate an exemption for certain
wastewater streams related to periods of startup and shutdown. More
specifically, the EPA proposed to remove the language at 40 CFR
63.11498(b) stating that the requirements of item 2 to table 6 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV for wastewater streams with a partially
soluble HAP concentrations greater than 10,000 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) and a separate organic phase do not apply during periods
of startup or shutdown.
Additionally, in light of NRDC, which vacated affirmative defense
provisions in the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP, the EPA
proposed eliminating the regulatory affirmative defense provisions from
the CMAS NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11501(e) in their entirety and the
definition of ``affirmative defense'' in 40 CFR 63.11502(b).
Finally, the EPA proposed revisions to clarify text or correct
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors.
These proposed changes include but are not limited to: referring only
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F when referring to definitions in the HON;
identifying the specific version of NAICS codes used to determine rule
applicability; removing redundant language; and requiring basic
facility details for reporting purposes. Section IV.D.3 of the proposal
preamble discusses other proposed editorial corrections and
clarifications.
2. How did the other amendments for the CMAS categories change since
proposal?
Based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
making a limited number of minor changes to the amendments described in
section IV.D.1 of this preamble. With regard to electronic reporting,
the EPA is making minor clarifying edits to the spreadsheet reporting
templates; the CEDRI website will contain the final versions of these
templates. Additionally, the EPA is revising the proposed provisions to
allow in the final rule owners and operators to
[[Page 16518]]
submit the NOCS up to 150 days after the effective date of the rule.
Otherwise, the EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to the CMAS
NESHAP identified in section III.C of this preamble and IV.D of the
proposal preamble without change.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the
CMAS categories, and what are our responses?
This section provides summaries of and responses to the key
comments received regarding the EPA's proposal to eliminate (1) the
design evaluation option at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 to the
CMAS NESHAP and (2) an exemption at 40 CFR 63.11498(b) for certain
wastewater streams during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA did
not receive many substantive comments on the other amendments discussed
in this section IV.C of this preamble. The comments the EPA received
generally supported the Agency's proposal for owners or operators to
submit electronic copies of specified performance test reports and
periodic reports via the EPA's CDX using CEDRI, as well as our proposal
to remove the affirmative defense provisions. The comments the EPA
received regarding other amendments generally include issues related to
electronic reporting, ongoing performance testing, and revisions that
the Agency proposed for addressing technical and editorial corrections.
The document entitled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources, available in the docket for this
rulemaking, contains the comments and the EPA's specific responses to
these issues.
a. Performance Testing
Comment: Some commenters opposed the EPA's proposal to remove the
design evaluation option at 40 CFR 63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 to the
CMAS NESHAP and instead favored retaining that option rather than
requiring periodic performance testing to demonstrate compliance with
the storage tank or process vent control requirements.
Commenters claimed that area sources face unique challenges to
conducting stack testing, including low flow, small duct/vent
diameters, and other measurement obstacles. The commenters also
remarked that performance testing represents a significant expense for
smaller area sources compared to major sources. These commenters noted
that it was unclear why the EPA proposed eliminating the design
evaluation option for CMAS, given that in other major source
rulemakings the EPA retained similar provisions, such as those for
storage vessels with closed vent systems, transfer racks, and
wastewater control devices under the HON, as well as those for storage
vessels and small control devices under the MON.
Another commenter asserted that periodic performance testing is
overly burdensome to facilities that use non-flare control devices for
operational or cost reasons and will not result in a commensurate
benefit to human health or the environment. The commenter provided that
in many instances sampling at the inlet to a control device can create
a safety hazard. The commenter requested that, at minimum, the EPA
incorporate provisions in the final rule that allow for reduced
performance testing frequency based on a history of good performance.
Additionally, the commenter asked that the EPA not require repeat
performance testing unless there has been a change to the process or to
the control device. Conversely, another commenter expressed support for
the EPA's proposal to require performance testing of non-flare control
devices every five years.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for and
opposition to the provisions requiring a performance test of non-flare
control devices initially and once every five years subsequently.
However, the commenters provided no supporting information for their
claim that performance testing represents a significant cost to area
sources. The economic analysis conducted for the proposed action
identified that the average annual revenue for an affected CMAS entity
was approximately $12,500 million.\44\ Even for small businesses
exclusively, the analysis determined that the average annual revenue
was $230 million. As part of the EPA's information collection request
(ICR) supporting statement, the Agency estimated that a performance
test would cost less than $50,000.\45\ As such, the EPA does not
anticipate that the costs of initial and subsequent performance tests
will significantly impact an average or small entity, given that the
estimated costs represent approximately 0.02 percent of the total
annual costs to a small entity and are incurred only once every five
years.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0025.
\45\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0039.
\46\ See the document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for the
Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to unique challenges at area sources, the EPA
acknowledges that control devices at CMAS may be smaller than those at
major source facilities. While low flow and small duct/vent diameters
can present some measurement challenges, the EPA expects facilities
will be able to purchase or install equipment, increase throughput, or
otherwise address these concerns, as facilities subject to other area
source NESHAP that require regular performance testing, such as the
gasoline distribution NESHAP, the polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production NESHAP, and the hazardous waste combustors NESHAP, have
achieved compliance with similar requirements for many years.\47\
Additionally, the EPA notes that many CMAS subject to the NESHAP are
synthetic area sources already subject to title V requirements and as
such already conduct performance tests to revise and update their
permits on a five-year basis. The EPA notes that owners and operators
may apply to use an alternative test method in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 63.7(f) for site-specific issues that may make the
specified methods difficult to use, such as interferants, unusual flow
situations, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 40 CFR part 63 subparts BBBBB, DDDDDD, and EEE,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the commenters who pointed out that the EPA has
retained the design evaluation option in certain major source
rulemakings, the EPA emphasizes that verifying compliance with the
standards is especially critical for CMAS. The EPA has found that
control devices often fall short of the efficiency levels claimed by
manufacturers for various reasons. However, the CAA limits area sources
to having a potential to emit less than 10 tpy for any single HAP and
25 tpy for any combination of HAP. Therefore, reduced control
efficiency can lead to higher-than-expected emissions, potentially
causing a facility to exceed the 10/25 tpy thresholds established by
regulation. This potential impact is particularly relevant for
synthetic area sources, which take enforceable limits on their control
device(s) to remain below major source thresholds. The EPA also notes
that a single compliant performance test does not guarantee future good
performance. Control efficiency can degrade over time, and it is
important to reassess the operation of the control device as it ages.
Additionally, operators and practices
[[Page 16519]]
may change over time, and a performance test every five years ensures
that APCDs continue to meet the standards.
Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA extend the deadline for
submitting a NOCS from the proposed 60 days to 150 days after the final
rule's effective date. This NOCS, as proposed, would include a summary
of performance test results and/or an engineering assessment related to
the proposed removal of the design evaluation option in 40 CFR
63.11496(g)(2) and table 5 to the CMAS NESHAP. The commenter stated
that additional time is needed to conduct the performance test and that
compiling some of the required submission information would involve
significant effort. The commenter also noted that other major source
rules, like the HON and PEPO Production NESHAP, provide 150 days after
the effective date of the final rule to submit the NOCS report.
Therefore, the commenter concluded, the final CMAS rule should also
provide the same timeline.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that some sources may
need to conduct performance testing which can take time to contract,
execute, and obtain results. Additionally, the EPA acknowledges that
the number of affected CMAS may strain the availability of resources
for conducting the required performance tests. Therefore, the EPA is
revising the final rule at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR
63.11501(b) to extend the NOCS submission deadline to 150 days
following the rule's effective date, although sources may submit prior
to the deadline.
b. Wastewater
Comment: A commenter objected to the EPA's proposal to remove the
language at 40 CFR 63.11498(b) that exempts certain wastewater streams
from the control requirements of item 2 in table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP
during periods of startup and shutdown. The commenter stated that
maintenance wastewater is typically generated during shutdown of
process equipment; therefore, the elimination of the exemption would
subject maintenance wastewater to the control requirements of item 2 in
table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP. As such, the commenter requested that the
EPA incorporate the HON's maintenance wastewater provisions at 40 CFR
63.105 into the CMAS NESHAP. The commenter added that in the original
HON rulemaking, the EPA acknowledged that maintenance wastewater was
distinctly separate from process wastewater and should be managed
through facility-specific procedures. Additionally, the commenter
stated that determining the stream characteristics of maintenance
wastewater is often difficult, given that a controlled drain system
does not capture all maintenance wastewater.
Response: The EPA considers the existing standards reasonable to
address maintenance wastewater generated by CMAS CMPUs and therefore
finds no need to incorporate the provisions at 40 CFR 63.105 into the
CMAS NESHAP.
40 CFR 63.11498(a) requires that all wastewater streams from a CMPU
subject to the CMAS NESHAP comply with item 1 of table 6 to the CMAS
NESHAP (i.e., owners and operators must discharge wastewater streams to
onsite or offsite wastewater or hazardous waste treatment). According
to 40 CFR 63.11498(a)(1), owners and operators of CMAS must understand
the applicability of requirements to all wastewater streams, including
maintenance wastewater, based on their concentration at all points in
time. While the commenter is correct that 40 CFR 63.11498(b) previously
stated that the requirements of item 2 of table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP
did not apply during periods of startup or shutdown, that provision did
not exempt sources from complying with the other aspects of 40 CFR
63.11498 or table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP. Therefore, owners and operators
should already know the concentration of most wastewater streams
(including maintenance wastewater) from CMAS CMPUs, and those streams
should already be captured and sent to treatment, as required by the
original rule.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 74 FR 56008 (Oct. 29, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For maintenance wastewater streams that contain partially soluble
HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw and
separate water and organic phases, the EPA expects that facilities
already have capture and control systems in place due to other
wastewater restrictions (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits, local publicly owned treatment works discharge
criteria, etc.). Given these other applicable and existing wastewater
restrictions, the EPA anticipates that owners and operators cannot
discharge wastewater streams containing an unseparated water and
organic phase or being treated as hazardous waste (per item 2.b. of
table 6 to the CMAS NESHAP). Moreover, the EPA does not expect that
facilities would change capture and control systems for these
wastewater streams during periods of startup or shutdown. Accordingly,
the EPA believes the removal of the exemption to control wastewater for
periods of startup and shutdown from the CMAS NESHAP has no impact on
CMAS facility operations and still ensures that a CAA section 112
standard is in place at all times.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and decisions regarding
the other amendments for the CMAS categories?
Based on the comments received for these other amendments, the EPA
is generally finalizing all proposed requirements. In a few instances,
the EPA received comments that led to additional minor editorial
corrections and technical clarifications being made in the final rule.
Section IV.D.3 of this preamble and the document entitled Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, which
is in the docket for this rulemaking, contain the EPA's rationale for
these corrections and technical clarifications.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
The EPA estimates that this final rule will affect 251 facilities
subject to the CMAS NESHAP. The document entitled List of Facilities
Subject to the CMAS NESHAP which is in the docket for this rulemaking,
lists these facilities.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the air quality impacts?
This final action will reduce HAP and volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from CMAS. The EPA estimates that the final amendments
to the NESHAP will reduce overall HAP emissions from CMAS by
approximately 160 tpy based on the finalized provisions detailed in
sections III.A through C of this preamble. Additionally, the EPA
estimates that the final amendments will reduce VOC emissions by 1,582
tpy.
The document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for the Final
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources (which is in the docket for this
rulemaking), the analyses referenced in sections IV.B through D of the
proposal preamble, and the document entitled Updated Impact
Calculations for the CMAS Categories--Final Rule (which is in the
docket for this rulemaking) contain more information about the
estimated
[[Page 16520]]
emissions reductions associated with this final rulemaking.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The EPA estimates the costs of the final requirements detailed in
sections III.A through III.C of this preamble will be approximately
$18.4 million in total capital costs (in 2024 dollars for the entire
period of analysis) and $5.7 million in total annual costs (including
product recovery). The ``total annual costs'' are the sum of the
annualized capital costs and other annual costs (e.g., operating and
maintenance costs, recordkeeping and reporting costs). To obtain
annualized capital costs, the EPA multiplies a capital recovery factor
by the capital costs. The EPA bases the capital recovery factor on the
lifetime of the capital equipment as well as the interest rate.
The documents referenced in sections IV.B through IV.D of the
preamble to the proposed rule and in the document entitled Updated
Impact Calculations for the CMAS Categories--Final, which is in the
docket for this rulemaking, contain more information about the
estimated cost of this final action for the CMAS NESHAP.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for the Final
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking,
discusses expected economic impacts, including the impacts to small
entities, of this final action.
The EPA estimates the PV of the costs over the 15-year analytical
period from 2027 to 2041 in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and
13563. Costs are in 2024 dollars, and the EPA discounts them to 2025 at
3 and 7 percent discount rates per the recommendation in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 (2003) and the EPA's
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (2024).\50\ \51\ The EPA
also presents the EAV at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The EAV takes
the non-uniform stream of costs (i.e., different costs in different
years) and converts them into a single annual value that, if paid each
year from 2027 to 2041, would equal the original stream of values in PV
terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CircularA-4.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CircularA-4.pdf</a>.
\51\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-12/guidelines-for-preparing-economic-analyses_final_508-compliant_compressed.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-12/guidelines-for-preparing-economic-analyses_final_508-compliant_compressed.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA estimates the PV of the costs over the 15-year period from
2027 to 2041 including the value of product recovery (i.e., the cost
savings) to be $72 million at a 3 percent discount rate and the EAV is
$6.1 million. Additionally, the EPA estimates the PV of the costs
including the value of product recovery to be $56 million at a 7
percent discount rate and the EAV is $6.2 million.
This final action impacts 55 small entities, which own a total of
61 CMAS facilities. The EPA evaluates economic impacts of rulemakings
on small entities by examining total annual cost estimates compared to
the annual revenues of the companies (i.e., entities) that are the
ultimate owners of the facilities affected by the rule. The EPA
estimates cost-to-sales ratios, which are the total annual costs
estimated for each entity divided by the entity's annual revenues. This
ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate
owners of CMAS facilities.
The EPA estimates the average cost-to-sales ratio for small
entities impacted by this final rule will be 0.18 percent with a
maximum cost-to-sales ratio estimated at 1.37 percent, not considering
the value of product recovery due to compliance. With product recovery,
the EPA estimates that the average cost-to-sales ratio for small
entities impacted by this final rule will be 0.14 percent with a
maximum cost-to-sales ratio of 1.35 percent. The EPA estimates that
approximately 5 percent of impacted small entities (three small
entities out of a total of 55) will incur total annual costs greater
than 1 percent of their annual revenue, and zero small entities will
incur total annual costs greater than 3 percent of their annual
revenue. The EPA does not anticipate that this final rule will have a
substantial impact on a significant number of small entities. The EPA
also does not expect this final rule to have significant market impacts
or employment impacts. For more explanation of these economic impacts,
refer to section VI.D of this preamble and the economic impact analysis
accompanying this rulemaking.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Refer to the document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for
the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What are the benefits?
The emissions impacts estimated for this final include reductions
in HAP emissions. In keeping with longstanding practice, the EPA did
not monetize the benefits from the estimated HAP emission reductions
associated with this final action. The EPA currently does not have
sufficient methods to monetize benefits associated with HAP reductions
and risk reductions for this rulemaking. While they are not monetized,
the EPA expects that there will be health benefits associated with the
estimated HAP emissions reductions. For additional information on the
nonmonetized benefits of this rulemaking, refer to the economic impact
analysis accompanying this rulemaking.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission impacts estimated for this final action include net
reductions in VOC emissions. Consistent with the proposed rulemaking,
the EPA was not able to monetize the health and environmental impacts
associated with the estimated changes in criteria air pollutant
emissions for this final rule, which includes changes in VOC emissions,
which impact the formation of ground-level ozone. Specifically, the EPA
did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP
emissions in this analysis due to methodology and data limitations.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that the EPA
submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in response to
Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket. The
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This analysis, Economic Impact Analysis
for the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, is in the docket for this
rulemaking.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 de minimis
regulatory action, rendering this action exempt from applicable
Executive Order 14192 requirements.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The EPA submitted information collection activities in this rule
for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2323.10. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rulemaking, and it is briefly
summarized here. The
[[Page 16521]]
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the CMAS NESHAP to add new
monitoring requirements for heat exchange systems, add monitoring
requirements for pressure vessels, add new monitoring practices for
PRDs, clarify regulatory provisions for vent control bypasses, and add
practices for instrument monitoring of equipment in organic HAP
service. In addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the CMAS
NESHAP that add requirements for electronic reporting of NOCS, periodic
reports, and performance test results and make other minor
clarifications and corrections. The EPA will collect this information
to ensure compliance with the CMAS NESHAP.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of CMAS
facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVVVV).
Estimated number of respondents: 251 (assumes 0 new respondents
over the next three years).
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
Total estimated burden: 10,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: Average annual cost is $3,710,000 (per year)
which includes $2,530,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance
costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the EPA will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this 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. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses with the CMAS categories (see section II.A of this
preamble). The EPA identified 55 small entities that this final action
will affect. The EPA has determined that three of the 251 facilities in
the CMAS categories affected by this final action may experience an
impact greater than 1 percent of their total annual revenue. The EPA
estimates that these three facilities will each incur approximately
$81,000 in total capital costs and $31,000 in annual costs not
including the value of product recovery (in 2024 dollars). Additional
details of this analysis are presented in section V.D of this preamble
and the document entitled Economic Impact Analysis for the Final
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chemical
Manufacturing Area Sources, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million
(adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The costs involved in this action
are estimated not to exceed $187 million in 2024 dollars ($100 million
in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit price
deflator) or more in any one year.
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. This action will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Federally recognized Tribal governments nor preempt
Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered to consult with Tribal officials
during the development of this action. A copy of that government-to-
government consultation offer is in a letter dated January 8, 2025, in
the docket for this rulemaking.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. The final rule lowers HAP
emissions and is projected to improve overall health for all
individuals, including children.
However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action.
The EPA does not believe this final action affecting the nine CMAS
categories will result in a disproportionate impact to children's
health. While the EPA is finalizing provisions that will reduce HAP
emissions (see sections IV.A through IV.C of this preamble), these
emission reductions will not benefit children more significantly than
any other group.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The EPA expects this final action would
not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, natural
gas production, or electricity production. The EPA estimates that this
final action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports or
exports of crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in
the energy supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy
supply, distribution, and use as a whole nationally, no significant
adverse energy effects are expected to occur.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA incorporates by
reference and is finalizing VCS ASTM D6784-24, ``Standard Test Method
for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (referenced in the CMAS NESHAP
at 40 CFR 63.11496(f)(3)(iii)) in this action with the following
caveats. The EPA has approved this ASTM procedure as an alternative to
EPA Method 29 only when the target compound is mercury,
[[Page 16522]]
and the ASTM procedure applies only to concentrations approximately 0.5
to 100 micrograms per cubic meter. This test method was developed
initially for the measurement of mercury in coal-fired power plants;
however, it has also been extensively used on other stationary
combustion sources including sources having a flue gas composition with
high levels of hydrochloric acid and low levels of sulfur dioxide. The
test method includes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples
from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory
analysis, and procedures for calculating results of elemental,
oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury emissions. ASTM D6784-24 is
available at ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.\55\ The cost of obtaining these
methods is not a significant financial burden, making the methods
reasonably available to stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ <a href="https://www.astm.org/">https://www.astm.org/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the proposal preamble, the EPA conducted searches
for the CMAS NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems
Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute.
The EPA also conducted a review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. The EPA
conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 5D, 21, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if
provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical
procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA
ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential
equivalent method. The EPA reviewed all potential standards to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rulemaking. This review
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements
of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for particular VCS.
While the EPA identified seven other VCS as potentially applicable,
the Agency decided these methods are impractical as alternatives
because of the lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and
other important technical and policy considerations. The EPA did not
identify any applicable VCS for EPA Methods 5D and 21, and none were
brought to its attention in comments. The EPA documented the search and
review results in the document entitled Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for Technology Review of the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, which
is in the docket for this rulemaking.\56\ Additional information for
the VCS search and determinations is in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 63.14 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(106) through (120) as (i)(107) through
(121); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (i)(106).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(106) ASTM D6784-24, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2024; IBR
approved for Sec. 63.11496(f).
* * * * *
Subpart VVVVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.11494 by revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text,
paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (c)(2)(iv), and (f) through (h) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11494 What are the applicability requirements and compliance
dates?
(a) * * *
(2) HAP listed in table 1 to this subpart (Table 1 HAP) are present
in the CMPU, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv)
of this section.
(i) The CMPU uses as feedstock, any material that contains
quinoline, manganese, and/or trivalent chromium at an individual
concentration greater than 1.0 percent by weight, or any other Table 1
HAP at an individual concentration greater than 0.1 percent by weight.
To determine the Table 1 HAP content of feedstocks, you may rely on
formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the
Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the material. If the concentration in an
SDS is presented as a range, use the upper bound of the range.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Manufacture of chemicals classified using the 2007 version of
NAICS code 325222, 325314, 325413, or 325998.
* * * * *
(f) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no
later than March 21, 2013, except as specified otherwise in paragraph
(i) of this section.
(g) If you start up a new affected source on or before October 29,
2009, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of
this subpart no later than October 29, 2009, except as specified
otherwise in paragraph (i) of this section.
(h) If you start up a new affected source after October 29, 2009,
you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source, except as specified otherwise in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 22, 2025, must be in compliance
with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11495(a)(6), (b)(4), and (e),
63.11496(e)(6)(iii), (f)(3)(iv), (f)(4), (g)(1)(iii), (g)(2)(ii), and
(g)(4)(iii),
[[Page 16523]]
and 63.11499(d), item 5 to table 5 to this subpart, and item 1.c to
table 8 to this subpart upon initial startup, or on April 1, 2029,
whichever is later. All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after January 22, 2025, must be in compliance with the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11495(a)(6), (b)(4), and (e),
63.11496(e)(6)(iii), (f)(3)(iv), (f)(4), (g)(1)(iii), (g)(2)(ii), and
(g)(4)(iii), and 63.11499(d), item 5 to table 5 to this subpart, and
item 1.c to table 8 to this subpart upon initial startup, or on April
1, 2026, whichever is later.
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.11495 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.11495 What are the management practices and other
requirements?
(a) Management practices. If you have a CMPU subject to this
subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) Each process vessel must be equipped with a cover or lid that
must be closed at all times when it is in organic HAP service or metal
HAP service, except for manual operations that require access, such as
material addition and removal, inspection, sampling and cleaning. This
requirement does not apply to process vessels containing only metal HAP
that are in a liquid solution or other form that will not result in
particulate emissions of metal HAP (e.g., metal HAP that is in ingot,
paste, slurry, or moist pellet form or other form).
(2) You must use any of the methods listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section to control total organic HAP emissions
from transfer of liquids containing HAP listed in table 1 to this
subpart to tank trucks or railcars. You are not required to comply with
this paragraph (a)(2) if you have notified the Administrator in your
initial notification that a material is reactive or resinous, and you
will not be able to comply with any of the methods in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for the transfer of such
material.
(i) Use submerged loading or bottom loading.
(ii) Route emissions to a fuel gas system or process in accordance
with Sec. 63.982(d).
(iii) Vapor balance back to the storage tank or another storage
tank connected by a common header.
(iv) Vent through a closed-vent system to a control device.
(3) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you
must conduct inspections of process vessels and equipment for each CMPU
in organic HAP service or metal HAP service, as specified in paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section, to demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to determine that the process
vessels and equipment are sound and free of leaks. Alternatively,
except when the subject CMPU contains metal HAP as particulate,
inspections may be conducted while the subject process vessels and
equipment are in VOC service, provided that leaks can be detected when
in VOC service.
(i) Inspections must be conducted at least quarterly.
(ii) For these inspections, detection methods incorporating sight,
sound, or smell are acceptable. Indications of a leak identified using
such methods constitute a leak unless you demonstrate that the
indications of a leak are due to a condition other than loss of HAP. If
indications of a leak are determined not to be HAP in one quarterly
monitoring period, you must still perform the inspection and
demonstration in the next quarterly monitoring period.
(iii) As an alternative to conducting inspections, as specified in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, you may use Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, with a leak definition of 500 ppmv to detect
leaks. You may also use Method 21 with a leak definition of 500 ppmv to
determine if indications of a leak identified during an inspection
conducted in accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section are
due to a condition other than loss of HAP. The procedures in this
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) may not be used as an alternative to the
inspection required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section for process
vessels that contain metal HAP as particulate.
(iv) Inspections must be conducted while the subject CMPU is
operating.
(v) No inspection is required in a calendar quarter during which
the subject CMPU does not operate for the entire calendar quarter and
is not in organic HAP service or metal HAP service. If the CMPU
operates at all during a calendar quarter, an inspection is required.
(4) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you
must repair any leak within 15 calendar days after detection of the
leak, or document the reason for any delay of repair. For the purposes
of this paragraph (a)(4), a leak will be considered ``repaired'' if a
condition specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section is met.
(i) The visual, audible, olfactory, or other indications of a leak
to the atmosphere have been eliminated; or
(ii) No bubbles are observed at potential leak sites during a leak
check using soap solution; or
(iii) The system will hold a test pressure.
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you
must keep records of the dates and results of each inspection event,
the dates of equipment repairs, and, if applicable, the reasons for any
delay in repair.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.11494(i) for equipment in organic HAP service, as determined by
Sec. 63.180(d), paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) of this section no
longer apply. Instead, you must comply with the requirements specified
in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section. Equipment that
is in vacuum service is excluded from the requirements of this
paragraph (a)(6). Equipment that is in organic HAP service less than
300 hours per calendar year is excluded from the requirements of this
paragraph (a)(6) if it is identified as required in Sec.
63.11501(c)(9)(i)(D).
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section,
conduct leak detection monitoring annually for all pumps in light
liquid service, valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid
service, and connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid
service as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) Use the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b)(1) through (3).
(B) The calibration gases must be zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air); and methane and air at a concentration of 10,000
ppm methane. At the end of each monitoring day, check the instrument
using the same calibration gas that was used to calibrate the
instrument before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, section 10.1, except do not adjust the
meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. If multiple
scales are used, record the instrument reading for each scale used.
Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-test
calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value for
each scale and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a
percentage. If a calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of
more than 10 percent, then re-monitor all equipment monitored since the
last calibration with instrument readings between the leak definition
and the leak definition multiplied by (100 minus the
[[Page 16524]]
percent of negative drift) divided by 100. If any calibration drift
assessment shows a positive drift of more than 10 percent from the
initial calibration value, then, at your discretion, all equipment with
instrument readings above the leak definition and below the leak
definition multiplied by (100 plus the percent of positive drift)
divided by 100 monitored since the last calibration may be re-
monitored.
(C) The instrument reading that defines a leak is 10,000 ppm or
greater. When a leak is detected, the following requirements apply:
(1) Clearly identify the leaking equipment. A weatherproof and
readily visible identification, marked with the equipment
identification number, must be attached to the leaking equipment. The
identification on the equipment may be removed after it is repaired.
(2) A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 calendar
days after the leak is detected.
(3) The piece of equipment must be repaired as soon as practicable,
but no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, except
as provided in paragraph (a)(6)(viii) of this section.
(4) The leak is repaired when instrument re-monitoring of the
equipment does not detect a leak.
(5) It is a deviation to fail to take action to repair the leaks
within the specified time. If action is taken to repair the leaks
within the specified time, failure of that action to successfully
repair the leak is not a deviation. However, if the repairs are
unsuccessful, a leak is detected and you must take further action as
required by applicable provisions of this paragraph (a)(6).
(ii) The following types of equipment are exempt from the
monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this
section if the equipment meets one of the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(6)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Any pump in light liquid service, valve in gas/vapor service or
light liquid service, or connector in gas/vapor service or light liquid
service that is designated as unsafe-to-monitor if:
(1) You determine that the pump, valve, or connector is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this
section; and
(2) You have a written plan that requires monitoring of the pump,
valve, or connector as frequently as practical during safe-to-monitor
times, but not more frequently than the annual leak detection
monitoring.
(B) Any pump in light liquid service if it meets one of the
requirements in Sec. 63.163(e)(1) through (6), (f), or (g). If the
pump is located within the boundary of an unmanned plant site then it
is exempt from the weekly visual inspection requirement of Sec.
63.163(e)(4), and the daily requirements of Sec. 63.163(e)(5),
provided that each pump is visually inspected as often as practicable
and at least monthly.
(C) Any valve in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that is
designated as a difficult-to-monitor valve if:
(1) You determine that the valve cannot be monitored without
elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters above a support
surface or it is not accessible at anytime in a safe manner;
(2) The CMPU within which the valve is located is an existing
source or you designate less than 3 percent of the total number of
valves in a new source as difficult-to-monitor; and
(3) You follow a written plan that requires monitoring of the valve
as frequently as practical, but not more frequently than the annual
leak detection monitoring.
(D) Any connector in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that
is designated as an unsafe-to-repair connector if:
(1) You determine that repair personnel would be exposed to an
immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (a)(6)(i)
of this section; and
(2) The connector will be repaired before the end of the next
scheduled CMPU shutdown.
(E) Any connector in gas/vapor service or light liquid service that
is inaccessible or is ceramic or ceramic-lined (e.g., porcelain, glass,
or glass-lined); however, if any inaccessible or ceramic or ceramic-
lined connector is observed by visual, audible, olfactory, or other
means to be leaking, a first attempt at repair must be made no later
than 5 calendar days after the leak is detected. The leak must be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days
after the leak is detected, except as provided in paragraphs
(a)(6)(viii) and (a)(6)(ii)(D) of this section. An inaccessible
connector is defined in Sec. 63.11502(b).
(iii) For compressors, comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.164.
(iv) For pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service or light
liquid service, comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.165(e)(1)
through (8), except as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(iv)(A) through
(D) of this section.
(A) Substitute ``violation'' with ``deviation''.
(B) Section 63.165(e)(3)(v)(D) does not apply.
(C) Substitute each occurrence of April 25, 2023 with April 1,
2026.
(D) Substitute the occurrence of July 15, 2027 with April 1, 2029.
(v) For sampling connection systems, comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.166.
(vi) For open-ended valves or lines, comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.167.
(vii) For pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid
service; instrumentation systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid
service, comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.169 except a leak is
detected if the instrument reading equals or exceeds 10,000 ppmv for
pumps, valves, and connectors instead of the leak definitions specified
in Sec. 63.169(b).
(viii) For delay of repair, comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.171 except the phrase ``Except as specified in paragraph (f) of this
section,'' and Sec. 63.171(f) do not apply.
(ix) For closed vent systems and control devices, comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.172 except as specified in paragraphs
(a)(6)(ix)(A) through (G) of this section.
(A) Substitute ``Sec. 63.162(b) of this subpart'' with ``paragraph
(a)(6)(xi) of this section''.
(B) Section 63.172(d) does not apply.
(C) Flares used to comply with this paragraph (a)(6) must comply
with the requirements in subpart SS of this part.
(D) Substitute ``violation'' with ``deviation''.
(E) Substitute ``For each source as defined in Sec. 63.101, and
for each source as defined in Sec. 63.191, beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.100(k)(10)'' with ``For each
affected source as described in Sec. 63.11494(d), beginning no later
than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.11494(i)''.
(F) Substitute ``After the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.100 of subpart F of this part'' with ``After the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.11494(i)''.
(G) Substitute ``periodic report required by Sec. 63.182(d)'' with
``semiannual compliance report required by paragraph (a)(6)(xiv) of
this section''.
(x) For agitators in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service,
comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.173.
(xi) You may use the alternative means of emission limitation
provided in Sec. Sec. 63.178 and 63.179. You may also request a
determination of alternative means of emission limitation to the
requirements in this paragraph (a)(6) as provided in Sec. 63.177. If
the
[[Page 16525]]
Administrator makes a determination that an alternative means of
emission limitation is permissible, you must comply with the
alternative.
(A) Substitute ``Sec. Sec. 63.163 through 63.171 and Sec. Sec.
63.173 through 63.176'' and ``Sec. 63.163, through 63.171, and
Sec. Sec. 63.173 and 63.174 of this subpart'' with ``paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (viii) and (x) of this section''.
(B) Substitute ``Sec. 63.181'' with ``Sec. 63.11501(c)(9)''.
(C) Substitute ``Sec. 63.163, Sec. Sec. 63.168 and 63.169, and
Sec. Sec. 63.173 through 63.176 of this subpart'' with ``paragraphs
(a)(6)(i), (ii), and (vii) through (x) of this section''.
(D) Substitute ``Sec. 63.180(b) of this subpart'' with ``paragraph
(a)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of this section''.
(E) Substitute ``Sec. Sec. 63.163 through 63.170, and Sec. Sec.
63.172 through 63.176 of this subpart'' with ``paragraphs (a)(6)(i)
through (vii), (ix), and (x) of this section''.
(F) Substitute ``Sec. 63.174 of this subpart'' with ``paragraph
(a)(6)(i) of this section''.
(G) Section 63.178(c)(3)(iii) and (iv) does not apply.
(H) Substitute ``Sec. 63.172 of this subpart'' with ``paragraph
(a)(6)(ix) of this section''.
(xii) Keep records as specified in Sec. 63.11501(c)(9).
(xiii) Submit the Notification of Compliance Status as specified in
Sec. 63.11501(b)(6).
(xiv) Submit the Semiannual Compliance Report as specified in Sec.
63.11501(d)(9).
(b) Small heat exchange systems. For each heat exchange system
subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate less than 8,000
gallons per minute (gal/min) and not meeting one or more of the
conditions in Sec. 63.104(a)(1) through (4), you must comply with
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, or as an alternative,
you may comply with any one of the requirements in item 1.a, 1.b, or
1.c of table 8 to this subpart. Beginning on April 1, 2029, for
purposes of compliance with this paragraph (b), Sec. 63.104(a)(3) and
(4) no longer apply.
* * * * *
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.11494(i), you must not inject water into or dispose of water in the
heat exchange system if the water is considered wastewater as defined
in Sec. 63.11502.
* * * * *
(d) General duty. At all times, you must operate and maintain any
affected CMPU, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such
operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on
information available to the Administrator, which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the CMPU.
(e) Bypass provisions. Beginning no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.11494(i), the use of a bypass line at any time on
a closed vent system to divert emissions subject to any of the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11495 through 63.11498 to the atmosphere,
or to a control device not meeting the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.11495 through 63.11498, is an emissions standards
deviation. If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.983(a)(3), then you must continue to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.983(a)(3) and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) and 63.999(c)(2)(ii) and
(iii), except the phrase ``Except for equipment needed for safety
purposes such as pressure relief devices, low leg drains, high point
bleeds, analyzer vents, and open-ended valves or lines'' in Sec.
63.983(a)(3) does not apply. Instead, the exemptions specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section apply. Owners or operators of
closed-vent systems and control devices used to comply with the
equipment leak provisions specified in paragraph (a)(6)(ix) of this
section are not subject to this paragraph (e).
(1) Except for pressure relief devices subject to Sec.
63.165(e)(4), equipment such as low leg drains and equipment subject to
the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section are not
subject to this paragraph (e).
(2) Open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind flange, plug,
or second valve and follow the requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.482-
6(a)(2), (b), and (c) or follow requirements codified in another
regulation that are the same as 40 CFR 60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c) are
not subject to this paragraph (e).
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.11496 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (e)(6), (f)(3) through (5), and (g)(1)
through (4); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (g)(5).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.11496 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
process vents?
(a) * * *
(3) If your current estimate is that emissions from batch process
vents from a CMPU are less than 10,000 lb/yr, then you must keep a
record of the number of batches of each process operated per month.
Also, you must reevaluate your total emissions from batch process vents
prior to making any process changes that affect emission calculations
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. If projected emissions
increase to 10,000 lb/yr or more, you must be in compliance with the
options for batch process vents in table 2 to this subpart upon
initiating operation under the new operating conditions. You must
maintain records documenting the results of all updated emissions
calculations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (iii) of
this section, the CEMS requirements and data reduction requirements for
CEMS specified in Sec. 63.2450(j) apply.
(i) Substitute April 1, 2026'' for ``August 12, 2020'' in Sec.
63.2450(j)(1).
(ii) Section 63.2450(j)(3) does not apply. Instead, you must
conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance
Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, except that the schedule
in Sec. 63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and before January 22, 2025, the
results of the performance evaluation must be included in the
notification of compliance status report. Beginning on and after
January 22, 2025, the results of the performance evaluation must be
submitted in accordance with Sec. 63.2520(g).
(iii) Substitute ``Sec. 63.11494(i)'' for each occurrence of
``Sec. 63.2445(g)''.
(f) * * *
(3) If you have an existing source subject to the HAP metals
emission limits specified in table 4 to this subpart, you must comply
with the initial and continuous compliance and monitoring requirements
in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. You must keep
records of monitoring results to demonstrate continuous compliance.
(i) You must prepare a monitoring plan containing the information
in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section. The plan must
be maintained on-site and be available on request. You
[[Page 16526]]
must operate and maintain the control device according to a site-
specific monitoring plan at all times.
(A) A description of the device;
(B) Results of a performance test or engineering assessment
conducted in accordance with paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section
verifying the performance of the device for reducing HAP metals or
particulate matter (PM) to the levels required by this subpart;
(C) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device
(including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and
continuous monitoring system (CMS);
(D) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits;
and
(E) Operating parameter limits based on either monitoring data
collected during the performance test or established in the engineering
assessment.
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section,
you must conduct a performance test or an engineering assessment for
each CMPU subject to a HAP metals emissions limit in table 4 to this
subpart and on or before June 1, 2026 report the results in your
Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS), after June 1, 2026 include a
summary of results of a performance test submitted according to
paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section and the results of an engineering
assessment in your NOCS. If the performance test was not submitted
according to paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, submit the complete
report with the NOCS. Each performance test or engineering assessment
must be conducted under representative operating conditions, and
sampling for each performance test must be conducted at both the inlet
and outlet of the control device. 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 the entire range of normal operation, including operational
conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not expected
during maximum production. You shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests. If you own or operate an existing
affected source, you are not required to conduct the initial
performance test if a prior performance test was conducted within the 5
years prior to the effective date using the same methods specified in
paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section, and, either no process changes
have been made since the test, or, if you can demonstrate that the
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance despite process changes.
(iii) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section,
if you elect to conduct a performance test, it must be conducted
according to requirements in Sec. 63.11410(j)(1). As an alternative to
conducting a performance test using Method 5 or 5D to determine the
concentration of PM, you may use Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-8 of this chapter to determine the concentration of HAP metals. ASTM
D6784-24 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may also be used
in lieu of Method 29, if the target compound is mercury and
concentrations are approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per cubic meter.
You have demonstrated compliance if the overall reduction of either HAP
metals or total PM is equal to or greater than 95 percent.
(iv) Beginning on the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.11494(i), the option to use an engineering assessment (as specified
in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section for determining compliance with
a HAP metals emissions limit in table 4 to this subpart) no longer
applies. Instead, you must comply with the performance test
requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. If a
performance test has never been conducted, conduct an initial
performance test no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.11494(i) or within 180 days after startup of the source, whichever
is later. Begin conducting subsequent performance tests no later than
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar
months after the previous performance test, whichever is later.
(4) If you have a new source using a baghouse as a control device,
you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on
all baghouses used to comply with the HAP metals emissions limit in
table 4 to this subpart. You must comply with the testing, monitoring,
and recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.11410(g), (i), and (j)(1),
except you are not required to submit the monitoring plan required by
Sec. 63.11410(g)(2) for approval. If a performance test has never been
conducted, conduct an initial performance test no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.11494(i) or within 180 days
after startup of the source, whichever is later. Begin conducting
subsequent performance tests no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous
performance test, whichever is later.
(5) If you have a new source using a control device other than a
baghouse to comply with the HAP metals emission limits in table 4 to
this subpart, you must comply with the initial and continuous
compliance and monitoring requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(g) * * *
(1) Requirements for performance tests. (i) If you are complying
with a percent reduction, mass emission limit, or outlet concentration
performance standard in table 2 to this subpart for batch process vents
or in table 3 to this subpart for continuous process vents, then the
requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this
section and in Sec. 63.2450(g)(1) through (4) apply instead of, or in
addition to, the requirements specified in subpart SS of this part.
(ii) Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator,
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(iii) If a performance test has never been conducted, conduct an
initial performance test no later than 180 days after the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.11494(i). Begin conducting subsequent
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous
performance test, whichever is later. 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 the entire range of normal operation, including
operational conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not
expected during maximum production. The owner or operator may not
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.
(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2026 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 procedure
specified in Sec. 63.9(k). Submit the data in a file format generated
using the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively, you may
submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-
[[Page 16527]]
reporting-tool-ert) accompanied by the other information required by
Sec. 63.7(g)(2) in PDF format.
(2) Design evaluation. (i) Except as specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this section, to determine initial compliance with a
percent reduction or outlet concentration emission limit, you may elect
to conduct a design evaluation as specified in Sec. 63.1257(a)(1)
instead of a performance test as specified in subpart SS of this part.
You must establish the value(s) and basis for the operating limits as
part of the design evaluation. For continuous process vents, the design
evaluation must be conducted at maximum representative operating
conditions for the process, unless the Administrator specifies or
approves alternate operating conditions. For batch process vents, the
design evaluation must be conducted under worst-case conditions, as
specified in Sec. 63.2460(c)(2).
(ii) Beginning on the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.11494(i), paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section does not apply.
Instead, the owner or operator must comply with the performance test
requirements in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(3) Outlet concentration correction for combustion devices. When
Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) requires you to correct the measured
concentration at the outlet of a combustion device to 3 percent oxygen
if you add supplemental combustion air, the requirements in either
paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
(i) You must correct the concentration in the gas stream at the
outlet of the combustion device to 3 percent oxygen if you add
supplemental gases, as defined in Sec. 63.2550, to the vent stream,
or;
(ii) You must correct the measured concentration for supplemental
gases using equation 1 to Sec. 63.2460(e)(6); you may use process
knowledge and representative operating data to determine the fraction
of the total flow due to supplemental gas.
(4) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in Sec.
63.2450(k)(1) through (7) apply in addition to the requirements for
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) in subpart SS of this
part, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) You may measure pH or caustic strength of the scrubber effluent
at least once per day for any halogen scrubber within a CMPU subject
this section.
(ii) The requirements in Sec. 63.2450(k)(6) to request approval of
a procedure to monitor operating parameters does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must provide the required information in
your NOCS report required by Sec. 63.11501(b).
(iii) In Sec. 63.2450(k)(7), substitute ``Sec. 63.11494(i)'' for
``Sec. 63.2445(g)''.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 63.11497 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and adding
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11497 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
storage tanks?
(a) Organic HAP emissions from storage tanks. You must comply with
the emission limits and other requirements in table 5 to this subpart
and in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section for organic HAP
emissions from each of your storage tanks that meet the applicability
criteria in table 5 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) SSM provisions. References to SSM provisions in subparts that
are referenced in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section or table 5 to
this subpart do not apply.
* * * * *
(e) Pressure vessels. If you are required to comply with this
paragraph (e) as specified in item 5 of table 5 to this subpart (for
each pressure vessel with a design capacity greater than or equal to
20,000 gallons), you must operate and maintain the pressure vessel, as
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The pressure vessel must be designed to operate with no
detectable emissions at all times.
(2) Except for equipment that meet the criteria specified in Sec.
63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(A) (for valves, connectors, and pumps in gas/vapor
service and in light liquid service that are unsafe to monitor), Sec.
63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(C) (for valves in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service that are difficult-to-monitor), and Sec.
63.11495(a)(6)(ii)(E) (for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service that are inaccessible or ceramic or ceramic-lined), you
must monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which organic
HAP could potentially be emitted by conducting initial and annual
performance tests using Method 21 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this
chapter.
(3) Each instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv is a deviation.
(4) Estimate the flow rate and total regulated material emissions
from the defect. Assume the pressure vessel has been emitting for half
of the time since the last performance test, unless other information
supports a different assumption.
(5) Whenever organic HAP are in the pressure vessel, you must
operate the pressure vessel as a closed system that vents through a
closed vent system to either a control device (other than a flare) in
accordance with Sec. 63.982(c); or a flare in accordance with Sec.
63.982(b). For purposes of compliance with this paragraph, a release of
organic HAP through a pressure vessel's pressure relief device to the
atmosphere is a deviation.
(f) Exceptions and alternatives to subpart SS of this part. If you
are complying with a percent reduction, mass emission limit, or outlet
concertation performance standard in table 5 to this subpart for
storage tanks, then the provisions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section apply in addition to the provisions in subpart SS of this part.
(1) Requirements for performance tests. (i) The requirements
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section apply
instead of, or in addition to, the requirements specified in subpart SS
of this part.
(ii) Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator,
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(iii) If a performance test has never been conducted, conduct an
initial performance test no later than 180 days after the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.11494(i). Begin conducting subsequent
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.11494(i) or 60 calendar months after the previous
performance test, whichever is later. 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 the entire range of normal operation, including
operational conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not
expected during maximum production.
(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2026, 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 procedure
specified in Sec. 63.9(k). Submit the data in a file format generated
using the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively, you may
submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-
[[Page 16528]]
reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) accompanied by
the other information required by Sec. 63.7(g)(2) in PDF format.
(2) Design evaluation. Beginning on the compliance dates specified
in Sec. 63.11494(i), the option to use a design evaluation to
demonstrate compliance in Sec. 63.985(b)(1)(i) does not apply.
Instead, the owner or operator must comply with the performance test
requirements in Sec. 63.985(b)(1)(ii) and paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.
0
7. Amend Sec. 63.11498 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11498 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
wastewater systems?
(a) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) and
(2) of this section and in table 6, item 1 to this subpart for all
wastewater streams from a CMPU subject to this subpart. If the
partially soluble HAP concentration in a wastewater stream is equal to
or greater than 10,000 ppmw and the wastewater stream contains a
separate organic phase, then you must also comply with table 6, item 2
to this subpart for that wastewater stream. Partially soluble HAP are
listed in table 7
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on April 1, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.