[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40903-40908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19560]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-7025-2]
RIN: 2060-AH47
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments and denial of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA promulgated the Group IV Polymers and Resins national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) on September
12, 1996. The EPA was petitioned to reconsider the equipment leak
detection and repair (LDAR) standards contained in the promulgated rule
as they pertain to polyethylene terephthalate (PET) facilities. On June
8, 1999, we issued a proposed denial of the petitions for
reconsideration and issued a direct final rule amendment to extend the
compliance dates specified for equipment leaks for PET affected
sources, as a result of the petitions to reconsider the equipment leak
standards for PET facilities.
After revising costs and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions
reductions using data provided by petitioners and other commenters, the
EPA is retaining the equipment leak provisions of the promulgated rule
with one exception; we are modifying the definition of a leak for
certain ethylene glycol pumps. In addition, we are extending the
compliance dates for the PET affected sources to comply with the
equipment leak provisions to August 6, 2002, in order to provide PET
facilities time to develop an LDAR program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-45 contains information considered by EPA in
the development of the standards for the Group IV Polymers and Resins.
The docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00
[[Page 40904]]
p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, first floor, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-5605, fax (919) 541-3470, and electronic mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket reflects the full
administrative record for this action and includes all the information
relied upon by EPA in the development of these petition denials. The
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related to this final
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's action will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the action will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by
this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category SIC codes NAICS entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............. 2821 325211 Facilities
manufacturing PET
resin using a batch
dimethyl terephthalate
(DMT), continuous DMT,
batch terephthalic
acid (TPA), or
continuous TPA
process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers likely to be interested in the amendments to the
standards affected by this action. To determine whether your facility
is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1310 of the Group IV Polymers and
Resins NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
these amendments to a particular entity, consult the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
I. Background
On September 12, 1996, the EPA promulgated the Group IV Polymers
and Resins NESHAP (61 FR 48208). Following promulgation, we received
two petitions for reconsideration regarding the LDAR program provisions
of the rule, and additional data in support of these petitions. The EPA
also received petitions regarding other sections of the promulgated
rule and is responding to those separately.
The petitions raised two primary issues. One issue stated that the
light liquid LDAR program was more costly than EPA estimated, was not
cost effective, and should not have been required. The other issue
contended that we had not performed a substantive analysis on the heavy
liquid LDAR program, which was added between proposal and promulgation,
to determine whether the cost per ton of HAP emissions reductions was
reasonable; thus, the EPA failed to meet its obligation under section
112(d)(2) of the CAA. The petitioners requested that we revise the cost
and cost per ton of HAP emissions reductions of the equipment leak
program based on new cost and emissions data they provided in support
of the petitions. The petitioners stated that this revised analysis
would show that the costs of the LDAR requirements are not reasonable
and would lead us to delete the equipment leak provisions for PET
facilities from the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP.
In response to the two petitions, in October 1998, we performed an
analysis that revised the cost and emission reduction estimates that
supported the equipment leak provisions of the Group IV Polymers and
Resins NESHAP. Based on that analysis, we proposed to deny the
petitions for reconsideration in a Federal Register notice that was
published on June 8, 1999 (64 FR 30456). Based on the comments
received, we performed a final equipment leak analysis in December 2000
entitled, ``Final Analysis of Equipment Leak Program for PET Facilities
Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP,'' which is
available in Docket A-92-45.
II. Summary of Comments and Responses
Several comments on the proposal to deny the petitions concerned
costs and the emission factors used to calculate the cost per ton of
HAP emissions reductions of the equipment leak program. Specifically,
commenters stated that we had underestimated the costs of the portion
of the light liquid program based on EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR 60,
appendix A, monitoring of equipment leaks. They also stated that the
use of synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI)
emission factors is inappropriate for PET facilities, and that the use
of those factors resulted in an overestimation of the HAP emissions
reductions resulting from the equipment leak provisions as applied to
PET production facilities. The commenters stated that we should not
combine portions of equipment leak programs based on one-time equipment
modifications with portions that require EPA Method 21 monitoring when
determining whether the cost of the equipment leak program is
reasonable.
In response to comments, in the December 2000 final analysis, we
revised the cost of the EPA Method 21 portion of the equipment leak
program based on data provided by the commenters. We continue to
believe that use of SOCMI emission factors is appropriate for PET
facilities. This is because, in general, the SOCMI and PET facilities
have comparable process design and process operation, use the same
types of equipment, and use similar feedstocks. However, in order to
determine the impact of the differences between the SOCMI emission
factors and the equipment leak data provided by commenters, we
performed a final equipment leak cost analysis using industry-supplied
leak data. The results of that final analysis indicate that the
incremental cost per ton of additional
[[Page 40905]]
HAP emissions reductions for the equipment leak program is reasonable.
(See the December 2000 final equipment leak analysis, which is
available in Docket A-92-45.)
We did not perform cost analyses which separate portions of the
equipment leak programs that require one-time equipment modifications
from the portions that are based on EPA Method 21 monitoring. We
consider the LDAR program to be a whole program designed to reduce HAP
emissions from equipment leaks across the total facility. The leaks
from individual equipment components are considered together due to the
similarity of the cause of the emissions and the control techniques. We
do not believe it is appropriate nor necessary to disaggregate
equipment leak programs by individual component types.
One commenter stated that there was a discrepancy between heavy
liquid pump requirements for PET facilities and light liquid pumps for
polystyrene plants. Specifically, for certain polystyrene pumps, an
indication of liquids dripping from pump seal bleed ports is not
considered to be a leak because dripping of fluid is a required feature
of this type of seal. There are also certain ethylene glycol pumps that
require dripping of fluid for proper seal operation. In response to
comments, we have modified the definition of a leak for ethylene glycol
pumps with this type of seal. Additional details on comments and
responses may be found in ``Responses to Comments'' memo dated December
2000 in Docket A-92-45.
III. Results and Conclusion
The following table presents the cost per ton of HAP emissions
reductions ratios by subcategory for the December 2000 final analysis
supporting this final denial of the petitions for reconsideration, the
October 1998 analysis supporting the proposed denial, the April 1996
analysis supporting the promulgated Group IV Polymers and Resins
NESHAP, and the March 1995 analysis supporting the proposed Group IV
Polymers and Resins NESHAP. These ratios represent the incremental cost
per additional ton of HAP emissions reductions of going beyond the
floor of no controls for leaks to requiring facilities to implement an
LDAR program. In the October 1998 analysis, the cost-per-ton ratios
ranged from $1,300 to $2,100 per ton of HAP emissions reductions. The
cost-per-ton ratios of the equipment leak program under the December
2000 final analysis range from $1,600 to $3,300 per ton of HAP
emissions reductions.
Summary of Cost-Per-Ton Ratios of Equipment Leak Program for Group IV Resins--Pet Production
[$/ton of HAP Emissions Reductions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 2000 October 1998 April 1996 March 1995
Process subcategory final analysis analysis analysis analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMT-Batch....................................... 3,300 2,100 620 960
DMT-Continuous.................................. 2,700 1,300 320 730
TPA-Continuous.................................. 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,100
TPA-Batch....................................... 1,600 1,600 730 2,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even after analyzing the cost-per-ton ratios using industry-
supplied leak frequency data in lieu of SOCMI emission factors, and
industry-supplied cost data, we have determined that the costs of the
equipment leak provisions of the promulgated rule are reasonable.
Therefore, we are not removing the equipment leak standards from the
promulgated NESHAP for Group IV Polymers and Resins, and we are not
modifying any provisions within the equipment leak program of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H, except as noted in the following section.
IV. Other Actions
A. Compliance Date Extension
On February 26, 2001, we issued a direct final rule amendment (66
FR 11543) to extend compliance dates contained in the promulgated Group
IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP to August 27, 2001. The revisions
extended the compliance dates specified in 40 CFR 63.1311(b) and (d)(6)
for PET affected sources. These compliance extensions were approved
pursuant to the CAA section 301(a)(1) in order to complete
reconsideration of equipment leak provisions and any necessary
revisions to the NESHAP.
After reconsideration of the equipment leak provisions, we are
retaining the equipment leak provisions of the promulgated NESHAP.
However, we are extending the dates for compliance with the equipment
leak provisions for the PET affected sources to August 6, 2002, so that
they are able to develop their equipment leak programs.
B. Modification of Leak Definition for Certain Ethylene Glycol Pumps
In reviewing the comments received on the June 1999 proposed denial
of petition, we are modifying the definition of a leak for certain
ethylene glycol pumps which are designed to weep fluids from the seals.
Seals that are designed to weep fluid will not be considered to be
leaking. This change was made to be consistent with a similar provision
for polystyrene pumps.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
on the basis of the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Today's action does not fall within any of the four categories
described above. Instead, it finalizes the denial of the petitions for
reconsideration, makes a minor revision to the equipment leak
provisions of the Group IV Polymers
[[Page 40906]]
and Resins rule and provides a compliance extension. The final action
does not add any additional control requirements. Therefore, this is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 12866 and was not required to be reviewed by OMB.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
These final rule amendments do not have federalism implications.
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This is because the
final action applies to affected sources in PET facilities, not to
States or local governments. Nor will State law be preempted, or any
mandates be imposed on States or local governments. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
final action.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today's final action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments because they do not own or
operate any of the sources affected by this final rule. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and it is based
on technology performance, and not on health or safety risks.
E. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 F.R. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's action does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. This action does not impose any
enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they
own or operate no sources subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins
NESHAP and, therefore, are not required to purchase control systems to
meet the requirements of the NESHAP. Regarding the private sector,
today's action will affect only 23 existing facilities nationwide. The
EPA projects that annual economic effects will be far less than $100
million. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
We have also determined that this action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action does not impose any enforceable duties on
small governments, i.e., they own or operate no sources subject to the
NESHAP and, therefore, are not
[[Page 40907]]
required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the
NESHAP.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule
amendments. The EPA has also determined that these rule amendments will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
because no small entities are subject to the NESHAP.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
For the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, the information
collection requirements were submitted to OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The OMB approved the information collection requirements
and assigned OMB control number 2060-0351. 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 are listed in 40 CFR
part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA has amended 40 CFR part 9, to
indicate the information collection requirements contained in the Group
IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP.
Today's action has no impact on the information collection burden
estimates made previously. Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP includes technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA searched for applicable voluntary
consensus standards by searching the National Standards System Network
(NSSN) database. The NSSN is an automated service provided by the
American National Standards Institute for identifying available
national and international standards.
The EPA searched for methods potentially equivalent to the methods
required by the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, all of which are
methods previously promulgated by EPA. The NESHAP includes methods that
measure: (1) Determination of excess air correction factor (percent
oxygen)(EPA Method 3B); (2) sampling site location (EPA Method 1 or
1A); (3) volumetric flow rate (EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D); (4) gas
analysis (EPA Method 3); (5) stack gas moisture (EPA Method 4); (6)
concentration of organic HAP (EPA Method 18 or 25A); and (7) organic
compound equipment leaks (EPA Method 21). These EPA methods are found
in appendix A to 40 CPR part 60.
No potentially equivalent methods for the methods in the final rule
were found in the NSSN database search, and none were brought to our
attention in comments on the proposed action. Therefore, the EPA has
decided to use the methods listed above.
J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this final rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). These final rule amendments will be effective on August 6,
2001.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 31, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart JJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutant
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins
2. Section 63.1311 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and
(d)(6), to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1311 Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to
existing applicable rules.
* * * * *
(b) New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after March 29, 1995 shall be in compliance with this
subpart upon initial start-up or by June 19, 2000, whichever is later,
except that new affected sources whose primary product, as determined
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1310(f), is PET shall be in
compliance with Sec. 63.1331 upon initial start-up or August 6, 2002,
whichever is later.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) Nothhstanding paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section,
existing affected sources whose primary product, as determined using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1310(f), is PET shall be in
compliance with Sec. 63.1331 no later than August 6, 2002.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.1331 is amended by revising (a)(6) introductory text
and adding paragraph (a)(6)(v), to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1331 Equipment leak provisions.
* * * * *
(a)* *
(6) For pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid
service; pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid
service; and instrumentation systems; owners or operators of affected
sources producing PET shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section instead of with the requirements of
Sec. 63.139. Owners or operators of PET affected sources shall comply
with all other provisions of subpart H of this part for pumps, valves,
connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service;
[[Page 40908]]
pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid service; and
instrumentation systems, except as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(iii)
through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(v) Indications of liquids dripping, as defined in subpart H of
this part, from packing glands for pumps in ethylene glycol service
where the pump seal is designed to weep fluid shall not be considered
to be a leak. Ethylene glycol dripping from pump seals must be captured
in a catchpan and returned to the process.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-19560 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P