1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 11, 2013

SUBJECT: Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production, 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, and Polycarbonate Production Source 

Categories

FROM: Lesley Stobert, EC/R Incorporated

TO: Nick Parsons, EPA

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the estimated cost impacts of the proposed amendments to 

the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production (APR), Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF), 

and Polycarbonate Production (PC) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) under the EPA’s Risk and Technology Review (RTR) program. This program addresses the 

requirements of sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The standards for the APR 

source category are codified at 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO, and the standards for the AMF and PC source 

categories are codified at subpart YY. 

In this action, several requirements for the APR, AMF, and PC source categories are being proposed. 

These proposed requirements are shown in Table 1.

Source Category(s) Propose Requirements Apply 

to New or Existing Sources

Process or 

Equipment

Proposed Requirement 

APR, AMF, PC Existing and new Pressure relief 

devices (PRDs)

Add monitoring 

requirements 

APR, AMF, PC Existing and new All processes and 

equipment

Add affirmative defense

to civil penalties for 

violations of emission 

standards that are caused 

by malfunctions

AMF and PC Existing and new Equipment leaks Eliminate a compliance 

option 

AMF Existing

Spinning lines that 

use a spin dope 

produced from a 

solution 

polymerization 

process

Add emission control 

requirements

APR Existing Storage vessels Add emission control 

requirements

APR Existing Continuous 

process vents

Add emission control 

requirements

APR New Storage vessels Revise emission control 

requirements
2

Section 1 provides background information, followed by the estimated cost impacts of the proposed 

requirements for each source category in section 2. 

1. BACKGROUND 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a comprehensive regulatory process to address emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In accordance with CAA section 112(c), the EPA 

identifies categories and subcategories of major sources that emit one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 

section 112(b). CAA section 112(d)(2) then calls for the EPA to promulgate national technology-based 

emission standards for each listed category or subcategory of sources. For “major sources” that emit or 

have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of 

HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum 

reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and 

environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology 

(MACT) standards. Section 112(d)(6) then requires the EPA to review the CAA section 112(d) 

technology-based standards and to revise them “as necessary, taking into account developments in 

practices, processes, and control technologies,” no less frequently than every 8 years. The residual risk 

review is described in section 112(f) of the CAA. Section 112(f)(2) requires the EPA to promulgate 

standards for each category or subcategory of sources “if promulgation of such standards is required in 

order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health . . . or to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The EPA is not proposing any new requirements or changes to 40 CFR 63, subparts YY or OOO as a 

result of the residual risk review for the APR, AMF and PC source categories. As a result of the 

technology review, the EPA is proposing revisions to the requirements for all three source categories. 

The AMF and PC MACT standards currently require compliance with either 40 CFR 63, subpart TT or 

40 CFR 63, subpart UU to control emissions from equipment leaks. However, subpart UU requires the 

use of a lower leak definition for valves, pumps and connectors as compared to subpart TT. The EPA is 

proposing to eliminate the option of complying with 40 CFR 63, subpart TT for the control of emissions 

from equipment leaks and require compliance only with 40 CFR 63, subpart UU for these source 

categories, with the exception of connectors in gas and vapor service and in light liquid service. The EPA 

is proposing to retain the option to comply with subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. Also as 

part of the technology review, the EPA is proposing to revise the APR MACT standards to expand the 

requirements for storage vessels at new sources to include additional storage vessels with smaller 

capacities and those storing material with lower vapor pressures.

In addition to the residual risk and technology reviews performed regarding the NESHAP, the EPA also 

reviews the existing provisions of the NESHAP during the RTR process. In 2008, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court vacated 

the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, 

commonly referred to as the “General Provisions Rule,” that the EPA promulgated under section 112 of 

the CAA. When incorporated into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA 
3

section 112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM. In light of and consistent with Sierra Club v. 

EPA, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemptions in the APR, AMF, and PC production 

NESHAP and require that the standards in these rules would apply at all times. In recognition that even 

equipment that is properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 

sometimes cause a violation of an emission standard, the EPA is also proposing to add an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards in these rules that are caused by 

malfunctions. If these provisions are used, the owner or operator is required to meet certain criteria during 

the malfunction, notify the Administrator of the malfunction that may cause an exceedance of the 

emissions standards, and submit a report of the malfunction to the Administrator (including a root cause 

analysis of the malfunction), within certain timeframes. 

Also as part of the revisions to address periods of SSM in response to the 2008 Sierra Club ruling, the 

EPA is proposing to specify that PRDs in organic HAP service may not release to the atmosphere. To 

ensure compliance with this requirement, facility owners or operators would be required to monitor each 

PRD such that they would be able to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release 

and immediately notify operators that a pressure release has occurred. The proposed provisions clarify 

that such release events would be violations of the emissions standards of these rules. 

Where the EPA identifies emission points that were erroneously not regulated under a MACT rule, the 

EPA may identify MACT floor and beyond-the-floor control options for existing and new sources and set 

standards for these sources under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). During review of the existing 

provisions of the NESHAP, the EPA identified unregulated emissions sources in the AMF and APR 

source categories. For the AMF source category, the unregulated emission sources identified are fiber 

spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a solution polymerization process. For these sources, 

the EPA is proposing an emission standard that reflects the MACT floor level of control, which is the 

existing level of emissions from the one facility in the source category. The proposed emissions limit is 

20 kg organic HAP/Mg (40 lb organic HAP/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced, which takes 

into account expected variability in the production-based emission rates. For the APR source category, 

storage vessels and continuous process vents at existing facilities were both identified as unregulated 

emissions sources. For storage vessels at APR facilities, the EPA is proposing requirements that reflect a 

beyond-the-floor control option. The proposed requirements are to maintain and operate the storage vessel 

with an internal or an external floating roof, or use a fixed roof tank with emissions vented through a 

closed vent system to any combination of control devices that achieve a 95-percent emissions reduction or 

reduce emissions to specified control device outlet concentrations. These proposed requirements would 

apply to storage vessels of capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons (gal), but less than 40,000 gal 

if the maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) is 1.9 pouds per square inch absolute (psia) or greater, and 

for storage vessels of capacities greater than or equal to 40,000 gal, but less than 90,000 gal if the MTVP 

is 0.75 psia or greater. Control would also be required for storage vessels of 90,000 gal or greater, if the 

MTVP is 0.15 psia or greater. For continuous process vents at existing APR facilities, the EPA is 

proposing requirements that reflect the MACT floor level of control. These requirements are to reduce 

organic HAP either by 85 percent or to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) when 

using a combustion control device, or to a concentration of 50 ppmv when using a non-combustion 

control device. 
4

2. IMPACTS OF RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS 

Table 1 presents the estimated costs of the proposed requirements for the APR, AMF, and PC source 

categories.

For purposes of estimating the costs for facilities in the PC source category to comply with the 

requirements of subpart UU, it was conservatively assumed that each facility is complying with subpart 

TT (and would incur costs to transition to subpart UU), even though some facilities may currently be 

complying with subpart UU. The only facility in the AMF source category is currently complying with 

subpart TT. Capital, annualized capital and O&M, and annual recordkeeping and reporting costs are 

expected as a result of the proposed requirement for facilities to comply with the lower leak definitions 

set forth in subpart UU. More information about how these costs were estimated can be found in the two 

memoranda, Technology Review and Estimated Cost Impacts for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category and Technology Review and Estimated Cost Impacts for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, which are available in the docket for the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR2012-0133).

For purposes of estimating the costs of the PRD monitoring requirement, it was assumed that all facilities 

would install electronic indicators on each PRD that would be able to identify and record the time and 

duration of each pressure release. However, the EPA is proposing to allow a range of methods to satisfy 

these requirements, including the use of a parameter monitoring system that may already have been in 

place. The PRD monitoring costs were estimated based on the number of PRDs at model APR and PC 

facilities, and the actual number of PRDs at the one AMF facility. More information about how these 

costs were estimated can be found in the memorandum, Cost Impacts of Pressure Relief Device 

Monitoring for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Polycarbonate Production, and 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Categories, available in the docket for the proposed rule 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).

The costs of complying with the APR source category requirement to control continuous process vent 

emissions by 85 percent are based on the average cost of a scrubber at the two facilities in the source 

category known to operate continuous process vents. Additional recordkeeping and reporting costs are 

expected for compliance with the proposed continuous process vent requirements. More information 

about how the continuous process vent costs were estimated can be found in the memorandum, MACT 

Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Unregulated Emission Sources in the Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers Production and Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Categories, available in the docket for 

the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).

For fiber spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a solution polymerization process in the AMF 

source category, no capital or annualized capital and O&M costs expected because the proposed control 

requirements reflect current operations at the one facility in the source category. However, some 

additional recordkeeping and reporting costs are expected for compliance with the proposed requirements 

for these spinning lines. More information about the analysis conducted for the fiber spinning lines that 

use a spin dope produced from a solution polymerization process can be found in the memorandum, 

MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Unregulated Emission Sources in the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Production and Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Categories, available in 

the docket for the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
5

For the proposed affirmative defense provisions, the EPA’s cost estimate for the required notification, 

reports and records, including the root cause analysis, associated with a single incident is based on the 

time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the 

events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also 

includes time to produce and retain the records and reports for submission to EPA. It is estimated that 

there will be only 3 occurrences of a source choosing to assert an affirmative defense for all sources 

within a given category over a 3-year period. This is because only a small number of excess emission 

events reported by source operators would be expected to result from a malfunction, and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. In Table 1 below, these costs are included in the annual recordkeeping and reporting costs.

For reporting and recordkeeping costs associated with the amendments to the requirements for the APR, 

AMF, and PC source categories, labor costs were based on the following labor rates:

Technical $54.66 ($26.03 + 110%)

Managerial $115.96 ($55.22 + 110%)

Clerical $38.14 ($18.16 + 110%)

These labor rates are based on the May 2012 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for 

the United States, occupational codes 51-8091 for chemical plant and system operators (technical), 11-

1021 for general and operations managers (managerial) and 43-6010 for secretaries and administrative 

assistants (clerical). The Appendix to this document includes more details regarding the estimated 

reporting and recordkeeping activities and costs associated with the proposed amendments to subparts 

OOO and YY for the APR, AMF and PC source categories.
6

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Proposed Requirements for the APR, AMF, and PC Source 

Categories

Source 

Category

Number 

of 

Facilities

Proposed 

Requirement

Capital 

Cost per 

Facility

Annualized 

Capital 

Cost per 

Facility

Total 

Capital 

Cost per 

Source 

Category

Total 

Annual 

Cost per 

Source 

Category

Amino and 

Phenolic Resins 

Production 

(APR)

18 PRD 

monitoring $21,919 $3,121 $394,542 $56,178

2* Continuous 

process vents

$1,109,750* $341,344* $1,109,750 $341,344

18

Annual 

Operation, 

Maintenance,

Recordkeeping 

and Reporting

- - - $93,612

APR Source Category Total (all proposed requirements): $1,504,292 $491,134

Acrylic and 

Modacrylic 

Fibers 

Production 

(AMF)

1

PRD 

monitoring $37,063 $5,277 $37,063 $5,277

1 LDAR program $1,428 $223 $1,428 $223

1

Annual

Operation, 

Maintenance, 

Recordkeeping 

and Reporting

- - - $7,673

AMF Source Category Total (all proposed requirements): $38,491 $13,173

Polycarbonate 

Production 

(PC)

4

PRD 

monitoring $12,649 $1,804 $50,596 $7,216

4 LDAR program $3,899 $541 $15,596 $2,164

4

Annual 

Operation, 

Maintenance, 

Recordkeeping 

and Reporting

- - - $20,477

PC Source Category Total (all proposed requirements): $66,192 $29,857

*There are 18 facilities in the APR source category; however, only 2 facilities operate continuous process vents. 

Costs shown are the combined costs for both facilities.
A-1

Appendix

Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs by Source Category

Table 1. APR Source Category Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs Associated with 

Amendments to Subpart OOO

Reporting or Recordkeeping Activity

Hours per year for the source 

category

Technical Management Clerical Cost

Reports

 Notification of compliance status (PRDs) 72 3.6 7.2 $4,628 

 Notification of compliance status (Storage vessels) 72 3.6 7.2 $4,628 

 Notification of compliance status (Continuous process vents) 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Semiannual summary report (PRDs) 198 9.9 19.8 $12,726 

 Semiannual summary report (Storage vessels) 198 9.9 19.8 $12,726 

 Semiannual summary report (Continuous process vents) 22 1.1 2.2 $1,414 

 Affirmative defense 18 12 0 $2,375

REPORTING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 686 $39,011

Recordkeeping

 Implement recordkeeping requirements (Storage vessels) 144 7.2 14.4 $9,256 

 Implement recordkeeping requirements (Continuous process 

vents) 16 0.8 1.6 $1,028 

 Implement recordkeeping requirements (PRDs) 36 1.8 3.6 $2,314 

 Develop record system (PRDs) 36 1.8 3.6 $2,314 

 Record information (Storage vessels) 144 7.2 14.4 $9,256 

 Record information (Continuous process vents) 16 0.8 1.6 $1,028 

 Record information (PRDs) 36 1.8 3.6 $2,314 

RECORDKEEPING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 492 $27,510 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (Rounded) $27,090 

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (Rounded) 1,178 $93,612
A-2

Table 2. AMF Source Category Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs Associated with 

Amendments to Subpart YY

Reporting or Recordkeeping Activity

Hours per year for the source 

category

Technical Management Clerical Cost

Reports

 Initial notification 4 0.2 0.4 $257 

 Periodic reports 15 0.75 1.5 $964 

 Leak detection and repair reporting 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Affirmative defense 18 12 0 $2,375

REPORTING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 61 $4,110

Recordkeeping

 Implement recordkeeping devices: PRDs 2 0.1 0.2 $129 

 Leak detection and repair program: identify all affected streams 2 0.1 0.2 $129 

 Develop record system for PRDs 2 0.1 0.2 $129 

 Develop record system for spinning lines 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Revise record system for new LDAR requirements 16 0.8 1.6 $257 

 Record information required for PRDs 2 0.1 0.2 $129 

 Record information required for new LDAR requirements 4 0.2 0.4 $257 

 Train personnel on new requirements 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

RECORDKEEPING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 51 $2,058 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (Rounded) $1,505 

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (Rounded) 112 $7,673
A-3

Table 3. PC Source Category Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs Associated with 

Amendments to Subpart YY

Reporting or Recordkeeping Activity

Hours per year for the source 

category

Technical Management Clerical Cost

Reports

 Initial notification 16 0.8 1.6 $1,028 

 Periodic reports 44 2.2 4.4 $2,828 

 Leak detection and repair reporting 32 1.6 3.2 $2,057 

 Affirmative defense 18 12 0 $2,375

REPORTING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 136 $8,288

Recordkeeping

 Implement recordkeeping devices: PRDs 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Leak detection and repair program: identify all affected streams 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Develop record system for PRDs 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Revise record system for new LDAR requirements 16 0.8 1.6 $1,028 

 Record information required for PRDs 8 0.4 0.8 $514 

 Record information required for new LDAR requirements 16 0.8 1.6 $1,028 

 Train personnel on new requirements 32 1.6 3.2 $2,057 

RECORDKEEPING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 110 $6,169 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (Rounded) $6,020 

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (Rounded) 246 $20,477