1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 11, 2014

SUBJECT: Revised Cost Impacts of the Amended 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 revised estimated cost impacts of the final 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. The revised cost impacts include an additional facility that the EPA 

learned is subject to the APR NESHAP during the comment period for the proposed amendments to the 

rule; removal of costs associated with the proposed affirmative defense provisions for all three source 

categories, which are not being finalized; and revised costs for continuous process vents in the APR 

source category.

1. BACKGROUND 

The EPA proposed amendments to the APR, AMF, and PC NESHAP to address the requirements of CAA 

sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) on January 9, 2014 (79 FR 1676). The EPA is finalizing most of the 

amendments as proposed, with a few exceptions. The affirmative defense provisions, which were 

proposed for all three source categories, are not being finalized due to a recent court decision that vacated 

the same affirmative defense provisions in another NESHAP (NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir. 

April 18, 2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281). During the public comment period for the January 2014 

proposal, the EPA received information that additional existing facilities have continuous process vents in 

the APR source category. This information, combined with additional data regarding the continuous 

processes and process vents at these facilities caused the EPA to reanalyze the MACT floor and beyondthe-floor levels of control and to revise the requirements and estimated cost impacts associated with those 

requirements. Also, while no additional changes to the proposed requirements for the three source 

categories are being made that change the estimated cost impacts of the requirements, an additional 

facility is being included in the APR source category, which affects the estimated cost impacts for that 

source category. This additional facility is added to the total number of facilities in the source category 

based on a comment the EPA received from the Occidental Chemical Corporation, which noted that it 

operates a facility in Petrolia, Pennsylvania that is subject the APR MACT standards, but which was not 

considered in the analyses conducted prior to the proposal of the rule amendments.
2

Considering these changes since proposal, the final rule amendments for the APR, AMF, and PC source 

categories are shown in Table 1 and described in the following paragraphs.

Table 1. Final Amendments for the APR, AMF, and PC Source Categories

Source Category(s)

Requirements 

Apply to New or 

Existing Sources Process or Equipment Requirement 

APR, AMF, PC Existing and new Pressure relief devices 

(PRDs) Additional monitoring 

AMF and PC Existing and new Equipment leaks Elimination of a 

compliance option 

AMF Existing

Spinning lines that use a

spin dope produced from a 

solution polymerization 

process

Additional emissions

control 

APR Existing Storage vessels Additional emissions

control 

APR Existing Continuous process vents Additional emissions

control 

APR New Storage vessels Revision to emissions

control requirements

The EPA is not finalizing 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 revising 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 eliminating 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 retaining the option for 

sources to comply with subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. Also as part of the technology 

review, the EPA is revising 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 eliminating the SSM exemptions in the APR, AMF, and PC production NESHAP and 

require that the standards in these rules would apply at all times. 

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

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

compliance with this requirement, facility owners or operators are 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. 

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 finalizing 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 final 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 finalizing requirements that reflect a beyondthe-floor control option. The 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 requirements 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 pounds 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 is 

also 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 finalizing requirements that reflect the 

MACT floor level of control. These requirements are to reduce organic HAP to 1.9 pounds per ton of 

resin produced. 

2. IMPACTS OF RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS 

Table 1 presents the estimated costs of the final rule amendments 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, operation, maintenance, and annual recordkeeping and reporting 

costs are expected as a result of the 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 
4

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

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 allowing a range of methods to satisfy these 

requirements, including the use of a parameter monitoring system that may already be 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 memoranda, Cost Impacts of Pressure Relief Device Monitoring for Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Production, Polycarbonate Production, and Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Categories, and Revised Cost Impacts of Pressure Relief Device Monitoring for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Category, which are available in the rulemaking docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2012-0133). 

The costs of complying with the APR source category continuous process vent emissions limit are based 

on the average cost of a carbon adsorption system for the three facilities in the source category expected 

to require additional emissions controls to meet the emissions limit. Additional recordkeeping and 

reporting costs are expected for compliance with the 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 Existing Unregulated Emission Sources 

in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category, available in the rulemaking docket (EPAHQ-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 are expected because the 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 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 rulemaking 

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

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 
5

reporting and recordkeeping activities and costs associated with the final amendments to subparts OOO 

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

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Final Amendments to the APR, AMF, and PC Source Categories

Source 

Category

Number 

of 

Facilities 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)

19

PRD 

monitoring $21,919 $3,121 $416,461 $59,299

3*

Continuous 

process vents $1,206,621* $287,408* $3,619,863 $862,225

19

Annual 

Operation, 

Maintenance,

Recordkeeping 

and Reporting

- - - $98,076

APR Source Category Total (all new requirements): $4,036,324 $1,019,600

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

- - - $6,069

AMF Source Category Total (all new requirements): $38,491 $11,569

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

- - - $18,102

PC Source Category Total (all new requirements): $66,192 $27,482

*There are 19 facilities in the APR source category; however, only three facilities are expected to install control 

devices to meet the continuous process vent emission limit. Costs per facility are the average costs per facility.
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) 76 3.8 7.6 $4,885 

 Notification of compliance status (Storage vessels) 76 3.8 7.6 $4,885 

 Notification of compliance status (Continuous process vents) 12 0.6 1.2 $771 

 Semiannual summary report (PRDs) 209 10.45 20.9 $13,433 

 Semiannual summary report (Storage vessels) 209 10.45 20.9 $13,433 

 Semiannual summary report (Continuous process vents) 33 1.65 3.3 $2,121 

REPORTING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 707.25 $39,529 

Recordkeeping

 Implement recordkeeping requirements (Storage vessels) 152 7.6 15.2 $9,770 

 Implement recordkeeping requirements (Continuous process vents) 24 1.2 2.4 $1,543 

 Implement recordkeeping requirements (PRDs) 38 1.9 3.8 $2,442 

 Develop record system (PRDs) 38 1.9 3.8 $2,442 

 Record information (Storage vessels) 152 7.6 15.2 $9,770 

 Record information (Continuous process vents) 24 1.2 2.4 $1,543 

 Record information (PRDs) 38 1.9 3.8 $2,442 

RECORDKEEPING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 535.9 $29,952 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (Rounded) $28,595 

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (Rounded) 1,243 $98,076 
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 

REPORTING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 31 $1,735

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 $1,028

 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 $2,828

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (Rounded) $1,505 

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (Rounded) 82 $6,069
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 

REPORTING SUBTOTAL (Rounded) 106 $5,913

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) 216 $18,102