National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation Residual Risk and Technology Review, 46138-46182 [2019-17223]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46138
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833; FRL–9998–13–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AU19
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site
Remediation Residual Risk and
Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Site Remediation
source category. This proposal presents
the results of the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) conducted as
required under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Based on the results of the residual risk
review, the EPA is proposing that risks
due to emissions of air toxics are
acceptable and that no revision to the
standards is required to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. Based on the technology review,
we are proposing to amend the
requirements for leak detection and
repair (LDAR). In addition, the EPA is
proposing amendments to revise
regulatory provisions pertaining to
emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM),
including adding requirements for
pressure relief devices; to add
requirements for electronic submittal of
semiannual reports and performance
test results; to clarify provisions
pertaining to open-ended valves and
lines; and to make minor clarifications
and corrections. The proposed revisions
to the rule would increase the level of
emissions control and environmental
protection provided by the Site
Remediation NESHAP. We are also
requesting additional comment related
to subcategorization of sources relating
to certain exemption provisions of the
original rule that were proposed for
removal in 2016.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be
received on or before October 18, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of
consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
receives a copy of your comments on or
before October 3, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us
requesting a public hearing on or before
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
September 9, 2019, we will hold a
hearing. Additional information about
the hearing, if requested, will be
published in a subsequent Federal
Register document and posted at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/site-remediation-nationalemission-standards-hazardous-air. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2018–0833, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2018–0833 in the subject line of the
message.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0833.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0833, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460.
• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004. The Docket
Center’s hours of operation are 8:30
a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except
Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this proposed action,
contact Matthew Witosky, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143–
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–2865; fax number:
(919) 541–0516; and email address:
witosky.matthew@epa.gov. For specific
information regarding the risk modeling
methodology, contact Matthew Woody,
Health and Environmental Impacts
Division (C539–02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
1535; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and
email address: woody.matthew@
epa.gov. For questions about monitoring
and testing requirements, contact
Theresa Lowe, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D143–05), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number (919) 541–
4786; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and
email address: Lowe.Theresa@epa.gov.
For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact Marcia Mia, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564–7042; and
email address: Mia.Marcia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact
Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by
email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to
request a public hearing, to register to
speak at the public hearing, or to inquire
as to whether a public hearing will be
held.
Docket. The EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833. All
documents in the docket are listed in
Regulations.gov. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI (Confidential Business
Information) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in Regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–
1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0833. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted
by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/
website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means
the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the
EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov/, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
The EPA is soliciting comment on
numerous aspects of the proposed rule.
The EPA has indexed each comment
solicitation with an alpha-numeric
identifier (e.g., ‘‘C–1,’’ ‘‘C–2,’’ ‘‘C–3’’) to
provide a consistent framework for
effective and efficient provision of
comments. Accordingly, the EPA asks
that commenters include the identifier
in either a heading, or within the text of
each comment (e.g., ‘‘In response to
solicitation of comment C–1, . . .’’) to
make clear which comment solicitation
is being addressed. The EPA emphasizes
that the Agency is not limiting comment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
46139
to these identified areas and encourages
provision of any other comments on
topics within the scope of this proposal.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit
information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information on any digital
storage media that you mail to the EPA,
mark the outside of the digital storage
media as CBI and then identify
electronically within the digital storage
media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comments that
includes information claimed as CBI,
you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI directly to
the public docket through the
procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage
media that does not contain CBI, mark
the outside of the digital storage media
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be
included in the public docket and the
EPA’s electronic public docket without
prior notice. Information marked as CBI
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following
address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2018–0833.
Preamble acronyms and
abbreviations. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble.
While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the
following terms and acronyms here:
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NRC National Research Council
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to
be persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
RACT reasonably available control
technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated
Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the
HEM–3 model
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning
Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally achievable control
technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM–3 Human Exposure Model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is this source category?
C. What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?
D. What other relevant background
information and data are available?
III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking
A. How do we consider risk in our
decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology
review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk
posed by the source category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
Decisions
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46140
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)?
B. What are the results of the risk
assessment and analyses for affected
sources?
C. What are our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effect?
D. Additional Modeling for Site
Remediation
E. What are the results and proposed
decisions based on our technology
review?
F. What other actions are we proposing?
G. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comment
A. Request for Comment Regarding
CERCLA/RCRA Exempt Sources
B. Request for Comment on all Aspects of
the Risk and Technology Review
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the
NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the
subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
the entities that this proposed action is
likely to affect. The proposed standards,
once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources.
Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities conducting site
remediations subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP may be affected
by this proposed action. As defined in
the Initial List of Categories of Sources
Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR
31576, July 16, 1992) and
Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List, Final
Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July
1992), the Site Remediation source
category is any facility engaged in the
cleanup of sites that possess
contaminated media. Sites undergoing
remediation of contaminated media
include, but are not limited to, any
facility at which organic materials
currently are or have been in the past
stored, processed, treated, or otherwise
managed at the facility. These facilities
include organic liquid storage terminals,
petroleum refineries, chemical
manufacturing facilities, and other
manufacturing facilities with collocated
site remediation activities. Units
requiring cleanup can include
hazardous waste dumps, industrial
surface impoundments, leaking tanks,
and municipal, industrial, and
combined landfills. Site remediation
includes, but is not limited to, the
following activities: Contaminated soils
cleaning; soil vapor extraction (SVE);
groundwater cleanup; oil recovery from
below ground; surface flow control;
waste material removal from the site;
treatment of waste material after
removal; and cleansing of water mains,
sewers, wetlands, and water bodies that
have been contaminated by wastes. Site
remediation does not include the
installation of controls to municipal
solid waste landfills to comply with the
new source performance standards or
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d)
emission guidelines.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION
Source category
NESHAP
NAICS code 1
Industry .......................................................
40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG ...........
Federal Government ..................................
...................................................................
325211, 325192, 325188, 32411, 49311, 49319, 48611,
42269, 42271.
Federal agency facilities that conduct site remediation
activities.
1 North
American Industry Classification System.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this action
is available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the
EPA will post a copy of this proposed
action at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/siteremediation-national-emissionstandards-hazardous-air. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register
version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same
website. Information on the overall RTR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
program is available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the proposed
changes in this action is available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 112 and 301 of
the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA
establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(HAP) from stationary sources.
Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards
and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are
based on maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to determine
whether additional standards are
needed to address any remaining risk
associated with HAP emissions. This
second stage is commonly referred to as
the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition
to the residual risk review, the CAA also
requires the EPA to review standards set
under CAA section 112 every 8 years to
determine if there are ‘‘developments in
practices, processes, or control
technologies’’ that may be appropriate
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
to incorporate into the standards. This
review is commonly referred to as the
‘‘technology review.’’ When the two
reviews are combined into a single
rulemaking, it is commonly referred to
as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’
The discussion that follows identifies
the most relevant statutory sections and
briefly explains the contours of the
methodology used to implement these
statutory requirements. A more
comprehensive discussion appears in
the document titled CAA Section 112
Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory
Authority and Methodology, in the
docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section
112 standard setting process, the EPA
promulgates technology-based standards
under CAA section 112(d) for categories
of sources identified as emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in CAA section
112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are
either major sources or area sources, and
CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards
and area source standards. ‘‘Major
sources’’ are those that emit or have the
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy)
or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or
more of any combination of HAP. All
other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For
major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2)
provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum
degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost,
energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts). These standards are
commonly referred to as MACT
standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also
establishes a minimum control level for
MACT standards, known as the MACT
‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor. Standards more stringent
than the floor are commonly referred to
as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain
instances, as provided in CAA section
112(h), the EPA may set work practice
standards where it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a numerical
emission standard. For area sources,
CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on
generally available control technologies
or management practices (GACT
standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting
focuses on identifying and addressing
any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk
according to CAA section 112(f). For
source categories subject to MACT
standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA
requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is
needed to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA
provides that this residual risk review is
not required for categories of area
sources subject to GACT standards.
Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the
two-step approach for developing
standards to address any residual risk
and the Agency’s interpretation of
‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in
the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene
Emissions from Maleic Anhydride
Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants,
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene
Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54
FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The
EPA notified Congress in the Risk
Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p.
ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted
this approach in its residual risk
determinations and the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the
EPA’s interpretation that CAA section
112(f)(2) incorporates the approach
established in the Benzene NESHAP.
See Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the
CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate
residual risk and to develop standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA
determines whether risks are acceptable.
This determination ‘‘considers all health
information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive
limit on maximum individual lifetime
[cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1
in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045,
September 14, 1989. If risks are
unacceptable, the EPA must determine
the emissions standards necessary to
reduce risk to an acceptable level
without considering costs. In the second
step of the approach, the EPA considers
whether the emissions standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health ‘‘in consideration
of all health information, including the
number of persons at risk levels higher
than approximately 1 in 1 million, as
well as other relevant factors, including
costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other
factors relevant to each particular
1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual
risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one
metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated
risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46141
decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate
emission standards necessary to provide
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. After conducting the
ample margin of safety analysis, we
consider whether a more stringent
standard is necessary to prevent, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect.
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately
requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112
and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking
into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)’’ no
less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call
the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floor.
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). Association of Battery
Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider
cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category?
The EPA promulgated the final Site
Remediation NESHAP at 40 CFR part
63, subpart GGGGG on October 8, 2003.
The NESHAP applies to ‘‘remediation
material.’’ Site remediation means one
or more activities or processes used to
remove, destroy, degrade, transform,
immobilize, or otherwise manage
remediation material. Monitoring or
measuring of contamination levels in
media, whether by using wells,
sampling, or other means, is not
considered to be a site remediation. The
rule applies only to active remedial
operations at sites that are major sources
with affected facilities subject to another
MACT standard. The Site Remediation
NESHAP applies to various types of
affected sources including process
vents, remediation material
management units, and equipment
leaks. The affected source for process
vents is the entire group of process
vents associated with the in-situ and exsitu remediation processes used at the
site to remove, destroy, degrade,
transform, or immobilize hazardous
substances in the remediation material.
Examples of process vents for in-situ
remediation processes include the
discharge vents to the atmosphere used
for SVE and underground
bioremediation processes. Examples of
process vents for ex-situ remediation
processes include vents for thermal
desorption, bioremediation, and
stripping processes (air or steam
stripping). The affected source for
remediation material management units
is the entire group of tanks, surface
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46142
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
impoundments, containers, oil-water
separators, and transfer systems used for
the site remediation activities involving
clean-up of remediation material. The
affected source for equipment leaks is
the entire group of remediation
equipment components (pumps, valves,
etc.) that is intended to operate for 300
hours or more during a calendar year in
remediation material service and that
contains or contacts remediation
material having a concentration of
regulated HAP equal to or greater than
10 percent by weight.
The Site Remediation MACT
standards include a combination of
equipment standards, work practice
standards, operational standards, and
performance standards for each of the
affected emission sources noted above.
C. What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?
The primary sources of data for the
risk assessment are EPA databases.
These include the EPA’s Enforcement
and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
database, which was queried to identify
facilities potentially subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP. Information
from this search was then used in a
query of the EPA’s National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) to identify site
remediation emission sources,
quantities of emissions, and emissions
release characteristics. The EPA also
reviewed the Toxic Release Inventory to
determine whether that data would be
useful in supplementing the information
extracted from the NEI.
We reviewed a variety of data sources
in our investigation of potential
practices, processes, or controls to
consider in the technology review and
to provide further information for the
risk assessment. These included the
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)/Best Available
Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
Clearinghouse (RBLC), NESHAP for
various industries that were
promulgated since the Site Remediation
NESHAP was promulgated, major
source operating permits, minor and
synthetic minor source operating
permits, and academic and trade
literature.
The RBLC provides a central database
of air pollution control technology
information and can help identify
appropriate technologies to mitigate
most air pollutant emission streams:
https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaerclearinghouse-rblc-basic-information.
As site remediation may include sources
from any industrial activity, we
searched the RBLC with a focus on
control of off-gasses in disparate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
applications, including processes in
three broad categories: Miscellaneous
Combustion, Waste Combustion and
Waste Disposal, and Other Waste
Processing and Disposal. Each of these
three categories was further searched
more specifically. For Miscellaneous
Combustion, the EPA searched emission
control afterburners and incinerators,
digester and landfill gas flares, and
other miscellaneous combustion. For
Waste Combustion and Waste Disposal
categories, the search included mixed/
other waste combustion/incineration.
Finally, the search under Other Waste
Processing and Disposal included
contaminated soil treatment, hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, and other waste processing
and disposal facilities.
The EPA also reviewed the NESHAP
for various industries that were
promulgated since the Site Remediation
NESHAP was promulgated. We
reviewed the regulatory requirements
and/or technical analyses associated
with these regulatory actions to identify
any practices, processes, and control
technologies considered in these efforts
that could be applied to emission
sources in the Site Remediation source
category, as well as the costs, non-air
impacts, and energy implications
associated with the use of these
technologies.
The EPA searched available state
databases for minor source permits and
synthetic minor source permits of
facilities performing remediation. The
Technology Review memorandum in
the docket lists the permits reviewed
and summarizes key findings about the
remediation projects and emissions
controls in use. Other scientific
literature was reviewed for new and
novel control technologies in use at site
remediation sources and similar sources
to control volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and HAP air emissions. Literature
for controls in use for land farming
applications and material extraction
activities was also reviewed. For a list
of material reviewed, see the
memorandum, CAA section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for the Site
Remediation Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action.
D. What other relevant background
information and data are available?
Documents from previous
rulemakings for the Site Remediation
source category can be found in the
docket under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2002–0021.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
III. Analytical Procedures and
Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the
analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and
other issues addressed in this proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our
decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this
preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP,
in evaluating and developing standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply
a two-step approach to determine
whether or not risks are acceptable and
to determine if the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on
acceptability cannot be reduced to any
single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he
Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is
best judged on the basis of a broad set
of health risk measures and
information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September
14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety determination,
‘‘the Agency again considers all of the
health risk and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that
information, additional factors relating
to the appropriate level of control will
also be considered, including cost and
economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties,
and any other relevant factors.’’ Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach
provides flexibility regarding factors the
EPA may consider in making
determinations and how the EPA may
weigh those factors for each source
category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of
the MIR posed by the HAP emissions
from each source in the source category,
the hazard index (HI) for chronic
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects, and the
hazard quotient (HQ) for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects.2 The
assessment also provides estimates of
the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence,
and an evaluation of the potential for an
adverse environmental effect. The scope
of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent
with the EPA’s response to comments
on our policy under the Benzene
NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated
with a lifetime of exposure at the highest
concentration of HAP where people are likely to
live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential exposure
concentration to the noncancer dose-response
value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect
the same target organ or organ system.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator
permits consideration of multiple measures
of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure
be considered, but also incidence, the
presence of noncancer health effects, and the
uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this
way, the effect on the most exposed
individuals can be reviewed as well as the
impact on the general public. These factors
can then be weighed in each individual case.
This approach complies with the Vinyl
Chloride mandate that the Administrator
ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the
public by employing his expertise to assess
available data. It also complies with the
Congressional intent behind the CAA, which
did not exclude the use of any particular
measure of public health risk from the EPA’s
consideration with respect to CAA section
112 regulations, and thereby implicitly
permits consideration of any and all
measures of health risk which the
Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
appropriate to determining what will ‘protect
the public health’.
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989.
Thus, the level of the MIR is only one
factor to be weighed in determining
acceptability of risk. The Benzene
NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of
approximately one in 10 thousand
should ordinarily be the upper end of
the range of acceptability. As risks
increase above this benchmark, they
become presumptively less acceptable
under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk
measures and information in making an
overall judgment on acceptability. Or,
the Agency may find, in a particular
case, that a risk that includes an MIR
less than the presumptively acceptable
level is unacceptable in the light of
other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045.
Similarly, with regard to the ample
margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated
in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA
believes the relative weight of the many
factors that can be considered in
selecting an ample margin of safety can
only be determined for each specific
source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic
factors (along with the health-related
factors) vary from source category to
source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also
consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as
discussed earlier in this preamble, in
our determinations of acceptability and
ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not
considered certain health information to
date in making residual risk
determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that
may be associated with emissions from
other facilities that do not include the
source category under review, mobile
source emissions, natural source
emissions, persistent environmental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
pollution, or atmospheric
transformation in the vicinity of the
sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential
importance of considering an
individual’s total exposure to HAP in
addition to considering exposure to
HAP emissions from the source category
and facility. We recognize that such
consideration may be particularly
important when assessing noncancer
risk, where pollutant-specific exposure
health reference levels (e.g., reference
concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for
adverse health effects. For example, the
EPA recognizes that, although exposures
attributable to emissions from a source
category or facility alone may not
indicate the potential for increased risk
of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting
from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of
the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to
which an individual is exposed may be
sufficient to result in an increased risk
of adverse noncancer health effects. In
May 2010, the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR
assessments will be most useful to
decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader
context of aggregate and cumulative
risks, including background
concentrations and contributions from
other sources in the area.’’ 3
In response to the SAB
recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR
risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency
(1) conducts facility-wide assessments,
which include source category emission
points, as well as other emission points
within the facilities; (2) combines
exposures from multiple sources in the
same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent
and bioaccumulative pollutants,
analyzes the ingestion route of
exposure. In addition, the RTR risk
assessments consider aggregate cancer
risk from all carcinogens and aggregated
noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target
organ system.
Although we are interested in placing
source category and facility-wide HAP
risk in the context of total HAP risk
from all sources combined in the
vicinity of each source, we are
concerned about the uncertainties of
3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and
Technology Review Panel are provided in their
report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46143
doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk
from emission sources other than those
that we have studied in depth during
this RTR review would have
significantly greater associated
uncertainties than the source category or
facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate
or cumulative assessments would
compound those uncertainties, making
the assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology
review?
Our technology review focuses on the
identification and evaluation of
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that have
occurred since the MACT standards
were promulgated. Where we identify
such developments, we analyze their
technical feasibility, estimated costs,
energy implications, and non-air
environmental impacts. We also
consider the emission reductions
associated with applying each
development. This analysis informs our
decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to
revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to
new sources versus retrofitting existing
sources. For this exercise, we consider
any of the following to be a
‘‘development’’:
• Any add-on control technology or
other equipment that was not identified
and considered during development of
the original MACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on
control technology or other equipment
(that were identified and considered
during development of the original
MACT standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction;
• Any work practice or operational
procedure that was not identified or
considered during development of the
original MACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution
prevention alternative that could be
broadly applied to the industry and that
was not identified or considered during
development of the original MACT
standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost
(including cost effectiveness) of
applying controls (including controls
the EPA considered during the
development of the original MACT
standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices,
processes, and control technologies that
were considered at the time we last
updated the NESHAP, we review a
variety of data sources in our
investigation of potential practices,
processes, or controls to consider. See
sections II.C and II.D of this preamble
for information on the specific data
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46144
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
sources that were reviewed as part of
the technology review.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk
posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete
description of the types of analyses that
we generally perform during the risk
assessment process. In some cases, we
do not perform a specific analysis
because it is not relevant. For example,
in the absence of emissions of HAP
known to be persistent and
bioaccumulative in the environment
(PB–HAP), we would not perform a
multipathway exposure assessment.
Where we do not perform an analysis,
we state that we do not and provide the
reason. While we present all of our risk
assessment methods, we only present
risk assessment results for the analyses
actually conducted (see section IV.B of
this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment
that provides estimates of the MIR for
cancer posed by the HAP emissions
from each source in the source category,
the HI for chronic exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the HQ for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of
the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence,
and an evaluation of the potential for an
adverse environmental effect. The eight
sections that follow this paragraph
describe how we estimated emissions
and conducted the risk assessment. The
docket for this rulemaking contains the
following document which provides
more information on the risk assessment
inputs and models: Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation
Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule. The methods used to assess risk
(as described in the eight primary steps
below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document
reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB
in 2009; 4 and described in the SAB
review report issued in 2010. They are
also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that
report.
4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the
EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—
MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland
Cement Manufacturing. (EPA–452/R–09–006; June
2009.) https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/
rtrpg.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
1. How did we estimate actual
emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
a. Sources Subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP
The EPA began compiling the list of
facilities for the risk review by searching
for facilities identified as being subject
to the Site Remediation NESHAP in the
EPA’s ECHO database. There are
currently 102 facilities identified as
‘‘subject to NESHAP GGGGG’’ in ECHO.
This list of facilities was used as the
basis for a query into the NEI to obtain
facility and emissions data for the 2014
reporting year.
Of the 102 facilities with data
retrieved from the 2014 NEI, six
facilities reported emissions under the
Source Classification Code (SCC) for site
remediation, and 96 reported emissions
only from their primary activity and did
not report any emissions for
remediation activities. We attribute the
absence of site remediation data for
these 96 facilities to either the facilities’
completion of site remediation activities
or reporting of site remediation
emissions data under other SCCs in the
NEI. The EPA chose to model all 102
facilities rather than only the six for
which remediation data was reported, in
order to take the broadest possible
approach to the risk assessment. For
example, while a remediation may not
have been occuring in 2014 that would
be reported in the 2014 inventory, the
EPA assumed that a remediation would
have taken place at some point at all 102
facilities since adoption of the Site
Remediation NESHAP. By including all
102 facilities, the EPA attempted to
estimate the risk of anyone who may
have been exposed to risk from a
remediation at an affected source,
regardless of the current (as of 2014)
status of a specific remediation action.
To address the lack of apparent site
remediation emissions data for these 96
facilities, the EPA developed a profile of
site remediation emissions for each
facility based on the facility’s primary
processes. Since site remediation
projects occur at many different types of
industrial facilities, ranging from
petroleum refineries to federal facilities,
and the emissions from the site
remediation are likely a subset of HAP
emitted by the facility, this emissions
profile approach was used to account
for the disparate nature of sources with
site remediation activities. To develop
the emission profiles for each facility,
the EPA used the six facilities that
reported HAP emissions both from their
remediation activities and from their
whole facility in the NEI and
determined the proportion of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
remediation HAP emissions to facilitywide HAP emissions for each facility. Of
the six facilities, the highest proportion
of remediation to whole-facility HAP
emissions was 0.79 percent. For the
other 96 facilities, the EPA used this
proportion to assign 0.79 percent of the
total amount of each HAP reported in
the NEI for the whole facility to the Site
Remediation source category for each
facility, arriving at a unique profile of
site remediation emissions for each
facility.
With respect to the risk analysis, the
EPA considers this to be a conservative
approach to addressing the lack of
remediation emissions reported in the
NEI. First, the data show that
remediation emissions are generally
small compared to major source
emissions at affected facilities, and the
highest proportion of remediation
emissions from the six facilities was
chosen for the remediation emissions
profiles. Second, all process pollutants
emitted by a facility were included as
the universe of potential pollutants
emitted during remediation. While site
remediation projects likely emit only a
subset of the HAP emitted by the
facility, this assumption was made to
ensure no specific pollutant was
excluded that could represent risk from
that facility. For several facilities, we
found that the emissions profile
approach had resulted in estimated site
remediation emissions that included
ethylene oxide. These ethylene oxide
emissions were removed from the
source category risk analysis because
the EPA considered that ethylene oxide
would be unlikely to persist in
contaminated media long enough to be
emitted during a site remediation.
Additional details on this determination
can be found in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation
Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Proposed Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
action. The EPA requests comment on
this model plant approach to address
data gaps in the RTR, and HAP
emissions from the Site Remediation
source category. (C–1)
b. Sources Exempt From the Site
Remediation NESHAP
The Site Remediation NESHAP
currently exempts site remediation
activities conducted under federal
oversight authority under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective
action or other required RCRA order
(see 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(3)). In 2016, in
response to a petition for
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
reconsideration regarding this
exemption and other aspects of the
NESHAP, the EPA proposed to revise
the NESHAP to remove the exemption
for site remediation activities conducted
under the authority of CERCLA or RCRA
(81 FR 29821, May 13, 2016). At
proposal, the EPA developed a list of
125 facilities that could potentially
become subject to the rule upon
promulgation if the exemption for
remediation projects subject to RCRA or
CERCLA standards was removed.5
Although exempt from the regulatory
requirements of the Site Remediation
NESHAP, these facilities are part of the
Site Remediation source category. To
understand both the risks from the
facilities already subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP requirements and
the risks from the facilities exempt from
the Site Remediation NESHAP
requirements, these groups of facilities
were kept separate for the purposes of
the risk assessment.
A process similar to that used to
estimate emissions from affected
facilities was used for the exempt
facilities. The EPA began with the list of
125 facilities previously developed and
queried the NEI to obtain facility and
emissions data for the 2014 reportingyear. Information was available in the
NEI for 118 of these facilities.6 Of the
118 facilities with data retrieved from
the NEI, 10 facilities reported emissions
under the SCC for site remediation, and
108 reported emissions only from their
production activity and did not report
any emissions for remediation activities.
For these 108 facilities, the EPA applied
the same site remediation emissions
ratio as that used for affected sources to
the whole-facility HAP emissions to
arrive at a unique site remediation
emission profile for each facility. For
these facilities, we used the same
assumptions with respect to ethylene
oxide emissions as were made in the
affected facility modeling.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the
RTR emissions dataset include estimates
of the mass of HAP emitted during a
specified annual time period. These
5 Stobert, L. EC/R Inc. to Hirtz, J., EPA/OAQPS.
National Impacts Associated with the Proposed
Amendments to Remove the Exemption for
Facilities Performing Site Remediations under
CERCLA or RCRA in the NESHAP for Site
Remediation. February 4, 2016. EPA Docket Item
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0021–0055. The EPA
estimated in 2016 that of the 125 facilities listed,
only 69 would likely become subject to the rule. For
the purpose of the risk review, the EPA modeled
the 118 facilities that could be identified in the NEI.
6 Seven of the 125 facilities were unable to be
clearly identified in the NEI and were not modeled.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower
than the emission levels allowed under
the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under
the MACT standards are referred to as
the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We
discussed the consideration of both
MACT-allowable and actual emissions
in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70
FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in
the proposed and final Hazardous
Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428,
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609,
December 21, 2006, respectively). In
those actions, we noted that assessing
the risk at the MACT-allowable level is
inherently reasonable since that risk
reflects the maximum level facilities
could emit and still comply with
national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to
consider actual emissions, where such
data are available, in both steps of the
risk analysis, in accordance with the
Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR
38044, September 14, 1989.)
For the Site Remediation source
category, the EPA treated actual
emissions as allowable emissions.
Allowable emissions under typical
MACT standards are the emissions that
would occur under full-capacity
potential operating conditions and as
allowed under the applicable MACT
standards. These are the conditions
included in the title V permit for the
facility. In the case of site remediation,
most remediation projects do not appear
in the title V permit or appear there for
approximately the duration of the
remediation and are then removed.
Since most facilities performing
remediation have the incentive to
conclude remediation expeditiously, the
EPA assumed that actual emissions
would equal allowed emissions under a
facility permit. Where no permit
condition was available, the EPA
assumed the remediation was being
conducted at full capacity to complete
the remediation as soon as possible.
Based on the NEI data available and the
relatively little information found in
title V permits for remediation projects,
the EPA modeled actual emissions as
allowable emissions.
3. How do we conduct dispersion
modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and
population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term
inhalation exposure concentrations and
health risk from the source category
addressed in this proposal were
estimated using the Human Exposure
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46145
Model (HEM–3).7 The HEM–3 performs
three primary risk assessment activities:
(1) Conducting dispersion modeling to
estimate the concentrations of HAP in
ambient air, (2) estimating long-term
and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50
kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and
population-level inhalation risk using
the exposure estimates and quantitative
dose-response information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD,
used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the
EPA’s preferred models for assessing air
pollutant concentrations from industrial
facilities.8 To perform the dispersion
modeling and to develop the
preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3
draws on three data libraries. The first
is a library of meteorological data,
which is used for dispersion
calculations. This library includes 1
year (2016) of hourly surface and upper
air observations from 824
meteorological stations, selected to
provide coverage of the United States
and Puerto Rico. A second library of
United States Census Bureau census
block 9 internal point locations and
populations provides the basis of
human exposure calculations (U.S.
Census, 2010). In addition, for each
census block, the census library
includes the elevation and controlling
hill height, which are also used in
dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response
values is used to estimate health risk.
These are discussed below.
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for
chronic exposures, we use the estimated
annual average ambient air
concentrations of each HAP emitted by
each source in the source category. The
HAP air concentrations at each nearby
census block centroid located within 50
km of the facility are a surrogate for the
chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who
reside in that census block. A distance
of 50 km is consistent with both the
analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene
NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14,
1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
7 For more information about HEM–3, go to
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
8 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General
Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion
Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218,
November 9, 2005).
9 A census block is the smallest geographic area
for which census statistics are tabulated.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46146
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
For each facility, we calculate the MIR
as the cancer risk associated with a
continuous lifetime (24 hours per day,
7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70
years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each
inhabited census block. We calculate
individual cancer risk by multiplying
the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each HAP (in
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m 3)) by
its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an
individual’s incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of
exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic
meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs
from the EPA’s Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For
carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable
sources of cancer dose-response values,
often using California EPA (CalEPA)
UREs, where available. In cases where
new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in
a manner consistent with EPA
guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by
the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in
addition to, other values, if appropriate.
The pollutant-specific dose-response
values used to estimate health risk are
available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/
dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer
risks associated with exposure to HAP
emissions from each facility in the
source category, we sum the risks for
each of the carcinogenic HAP 10 emitted
by the modeled facility. We estimate
cancer risk at every census block within
10 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic
to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’
and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with
the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen,
and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are
the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51
FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the
document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
(EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a
supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both
documents can be obtained from https://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recorddisplay.cfm?deid=
20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944.
Summing the risk of these individual compounds
to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach
that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their
2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) titled, NATA—Evaluating the
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—
an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915B
B04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
50 km of every facility in the source
category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated
for any of those census blocks. In
addition to calculating the MIR, we
estimate the distribution of individual
cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals
within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified
risk range. We also estimate annual
cancer incidence by multiplying the
estimated lifetime cancer risk at each
census block by the number of people
residing in that block, summing results
for all of the census blocks, and then
dividing this result by a 70-year
lifetime.
To assess the risk of noncancer health
effects from chronic exposure to HAP,
we calculate either an HQ or a target
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI).
We calculate an HQ when a single
noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more
than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we
sum the HQ for each of the HAP that
affects a common target organ or target
organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The
HQ is the estimated exposure divided
by the chronic noncancer dose-response
value, which is a value selected from
one of several sources. The preferred
chronic noncancer dose-response value
is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human
population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime’’ (https://
iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/
termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?
details=&vocabName=IRIS
%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or
where the EPA determines that using a
value other than the RfC is appropriate,
the chronic noncancer dose-response
value can be a value from the following
prioritized sources, which define their
dose-response values similarly to the
EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2)
the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure
Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/
crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as
noted above, a scientifically credible
dose-response value that has been
developed in a manner consistent with
the EPA guidelines and has undergone
a peer review process similar to that
used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dose-response values used to estimate
health risks are available at https://
www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP
That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate
acute inhalation dose-response values
are available, the EPA also assesses the
potential health risks due to acute
exposure. For these assessments, the
EPA makes conservative assumptions
about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed
rulemaking, as part of our efforts to
continually improve our methodologies
to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted
from categories of industrial sources
pose to human health and the
environment,11 we are revising our
treatment of meteorological data to use
reasonable worst-case air dispersion
conditions in our acute risk screening
assessments instead of worst-case air
dispersion conditions. This revised
treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in
more detail in Residual Risk Assessment
for the Site Remediation Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule
and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Technical Support Document for Acute
Risk Screening Assessment. We will be
applying this revision in RTR
rulemakings proposed on or after June 3,
2019.
To assess the potential acute risk to
the maximally exposed individual, we
use the peak hourly emission rate for
each emission point,12 reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions
(i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of
highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the
source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur
and that a person is present at the point
of maximum exposure.
To characterize the potential health
risks associated with estimated acute
11 U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study
Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
12 In the absence of hourly emission data, we
develop estimates of maximum hourly emission
rates by multiplying the average actual annual
emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account
for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk
Assessment for Site Remediation Source Category
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Technical Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment. Both are available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
inhalation exposures to a HAP, we
generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs,
acute exposure guideline levels
(AEGLs), and emergency response
planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour
exposure durations), if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is
calculated by dividing the estimated
acute exposure concentration by the
acute dose-response value. For each
HAP for which acute dose-response
values are available, the EPA calculates
acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the
concentration level at or below which
no adverse health effects are anticipated
for a specified exposure duration.’’ 13
Acute RELs are based on the most
sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect
reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are
designed to protect the most sensitive
individuals in the population through
the inclusion of margins of safety.
Because margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and
uncertainties, exceeding the REL does
not automatically indicate an adverse
health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general
public and are applicable to emergency
exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8
hours.14 They are guideline levels for
‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term
exposures to airborne concentrations of
acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’
Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically
defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration
(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or
mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of
a substance above which it is predicted
that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could
experience notable discomfort,
irritation, or certain asymptomatic
nonsensory effects. However, the effects
are not disabling and are transient and
reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’
The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne
concentrations below AEGL–1 represent
13 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I,
The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure
Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary.
14 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing
Operating Procedures for Developing Acute
Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_
operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended
in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues
to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://
www.epa.gov/aegl).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
exposure levels that can produce mild
and progressively increasing but
transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id.
AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne
concentration (expressed as parts per
million or milligrams per cubic meter)
of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population,
including susceptible individuals, could
experience irreversible or other serious,
long-lasting adverse health effects or an
impaired ability to escape.’’ Id.
ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency
planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for
single exposures to chemicals.’’ 15 Id. at
1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the
maximum airborne concentration below
which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to
1 hour without experiencing other than
mild transient adverse health effects or
without perceiving a clearly defined,
objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly,
the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the
maximum airborne concentration below
which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to
one hour without experiencing or
developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could
impair an individual’s ability to take
protective action.’’ Id. at 1.
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure
durations is typically lower than its
corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1.
Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the
same as the corresponding ERPG–1s,
and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG–
2s. The maximum HQs from our acute
inhalation screening risk assessment
typically result when we use the acute
REL for a HAP. In cases where the
maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also
report the HQ based on the next highest
acute dose-response value (usually the
AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1).
For this source category, we used a
default acute emissions multiplier of 10
as hourly emissions data from site
remediation activities were generally
not available.
In our acute inhalation screening risk
assessment, acute impacts are deemed
negligible for HAP for which acute HQs
are less than or equal to 1, and no
further analysis is performed for these
15 American Industrial Hygiene Association.
ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March
2014. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/getinvolved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/Emergency
ResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG
%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating
%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014
%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014
%29.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46147
HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from
the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure
the acute HQ is an off-site location.
4. How do we conduct the
multipathway exposure and risk
screening assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening
assessment examining the potential for
significant human health risks due to
exposures via routes other than
inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first
determine whether any sources in the
source category emit any PB–HAP, as
identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk
Assessment Library (see Volume 1,
Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2013-08/
documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf).
For the Site Remediation source
category, we identified PB–HAP
emissions of arsenic compounds,
cadmium compounds, mercury
compounds, polycyclic organic matter
(POM), and lead compounds, so we
proceeded to the next step of the
evaluation. In this step, we determine
whether the facility-specific emission
rates of the emitted PB–HAP are large
enough to create the potential for
significant human health risk through
ingestion exposure under reasonable
worst-case conditions. To facilitate this
step, we use previously developed
screening threshold emission rates for
several PB–HAP that are based on a
hypothetical upper-end screening
exposure scenario developed for use in
conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk
Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport,
and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE)
model. The PB–HAP with screening
threshold emission rates are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds,
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
mercury compounds, and POM. Based
on the EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, the
pollutants above represent a
conservative list for inclusion in
multipathway risk assessments for RTR
rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/201308/documents/volume_1_
reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission
rates of these PB–HAP to the screening
threshold emission rates for each PB–
HAP to assess the potential for
significant human health risks via the
ingestion pathway (combined ingestion
rates for a fisher and farmer scenario).
We call this application of the
TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening
assessment. The ratio of a facility’s
actual emission rate to the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate is a
‘‘screening value.’’
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46148
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
We derive the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rates for these PB–
HAP (other than lead compounds) to
correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million
(i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and
furans and POM) or, for HAP that cause
noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium
compounds and mercury compounds), a
maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate
of any one PB–HAP or combination of
carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1
screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate for
any facility (i.e., the screening value is
greater than 1), we conduct a second
screening assessment, which we call the
Tier 2 screening assessment (ingestion
rates are decoupled into separate upperbound ingestion rates for the fisher,
farmer, and gardener scenarios).
In the Tier 2 screening assessment,
the location of each facility that exceeds
a Tier 1 screening threshold emission
rate is used to refine the assumptions
associated with the Tier 1 fisher and
farmer exposure scenarios at that
facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/
or farm is located near the facility. As
part of the Tier 2 screening assessment
for the fisher scenario, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to
identify actual waterbodies within 50
km of each facility and assume the
fisher only consumes fish from lakes
within that 50 km zone. For the Tier 2
farmer scenario, we assume the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, vegetables, and
fruit grown near the facility. If further
Tier 2 screening is necessary for the
farmer scenario, we may also assess the
gardener scenario. For the gardener
scenario, we assume the gardener only
grows and consumes eggs, vegetables,
and fruit at the same ingestion rate as
the farmer. For Tier 2, we replace the
meteorology used in the Tier 1
screening assessment with the local
meteorology near each facility. We then
adjust the previously-developed Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates for
each PB–HAP for each facility based on
an understanding of how exposure
concentrations estimated for the
screening scenario change with the use
of local meteorology and USGS
waterbody data. If the PB–HAP emission
rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2
screening threshold emission rates and
data are available, we may conduct a
Tier 3 screening assessment, or if the
screening values are excessively high,
go straight to a site-specific assessment
utilizing TRIM FaTE. If PB–HAP
emission rates do not exceed a Tier 2
screening value of 1, we consider those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PB–HAP emissions to pose risks below
a level of concern.
There are several analyses that can be
included in a Tier 3 screening
assessment, depending upon the extent
of refinement warranted, including
validating that the lakes are fishable,
considering plume-rise to estimate
emissions lost above the mixing layer,
and considering hourly effects of
meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier
3 screening assessment indicates that
risks above levels of concern cannot be
ruled out, the EPA may further refine
the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment.
For further information on the
multipathway assessment approach, see
the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Site Remediation Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we assess risks considering
emissions control options?
In addition to assessing baseline
inhalation risks and screening for
potential multipathway risks, we also
estimate risks considering the potential
emission reductions that would be
achieved by the control options under
consideration. In these cases, the
expected emission reductions are
applied to the specific HAP and
emission points in the RTR emissions
dataset to develop corresponding
estimates of risk and incremental risk
reductions.
6. How do we conduct the
environmental risk screening
assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect,
Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening
assessment to examine the potential for
an adverse environmental effect as
required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of
the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA
defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’
as ‘‘any significant and widespread
adverse effect, which may reasonably be
anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or
other natural resources, including
adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or
significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad
areas.’’
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which
are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’
in its screening assessment: Six PB–
HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP
included in the screening assessment
are arsenic compounds, cadmium
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compounds, dioxins/furans, POM,
mercury (both inorganic mercury and
methyl mercury), and lead compounds.
The acid gases included in the screening
assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate
are of particular environmental concern
because they accumulate in the soil,
sediment, and water. The acid gases,
HCl and HF, are included due to their
well-documented potential to cause
direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening
assessment, we evaluate the following
four exposure media: Terrestrial soils,
surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish
consumed by wildlife, and air. Within
these four exposure media, we evaluate
nine ecological assessment endpoints,
which are defined by the ecological
entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP
(other than lead), both community-level
and population-level endpoints are
included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a
concentration of HAP that has been
linked to a particular environmental
effect level. For each environmental
HAP, we identified the available
ecological benchmarks for each
assessment endpoint. We identified,
where possible, ecological benchmarks
at the following effect levels: Probable
effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple
effect levels were available for a
particular PB–HAP and assessment
endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine
whether ecological risks exist and, if so,
whether the risks could be considered
significant and widespread.
For further information on how the
environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a
discussion of the risk metrics used, how
the environmental HAP were identified,
and how the ecological benchmarks
were selected, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Site
Remediation Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening
Methodology
For the environmental risk screening
assessment, the EPA first determined
whether any facilities in the Site
Remediation source category emitted
any of the environmental HAP. For the
Site Remediation source category, we
identified emissions of arsenic
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
compounds, cadmium compounds,
mercury compounds, POM, HCl, and
hydrofluoric acid. Because one or more
of the environmental HAP evaluated
(arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, mercury compounds, POM,
lead compounds, and HCl, and
hydrofluoric acid) are emitted by at least
one facility in the source category, we
proceeded to the second step of the
evaluation.16
c. PB–HAP Methodology
The environmental screening
assessment includes six PB–HAP,
arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, dioxins/furans, POM,
mercury (both inorganic mercury and
methyl mercury), and lead compounds.
With the exception of lead, the
environmental risk screening
assessment for PB–HAP consists of three
tiers. The first tier of the environmental
risk screening assessment uses the same
health-protective conceptual model that
is used for the Tier 1 human health
screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE
model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rates. The screening threshold
emission rates represent the emission
rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the
facility that equal the relevant ecological
benchmark. To assess emissions from
each facility in the category, the
reported emission rate for each PB–HAP
was compared to the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP
for each assessment endpoint and effect
level. If emissions from a facility do not
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the
screening assessment, and, therefore, is
not evaluated further under the
screening approach. If emissions from a
facility exceed the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental
screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to
account for local meteorology and the
actual location of lakes in the vicinity of
facilities that did not pass the Tier 1
screening assessment. For soils, we
evaluate the average soil concentration
for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km
radius for each facility and PB–HAP.
For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for
each facility for each pollutant is used.
16 The environmental HAP emitted by facilities
modeled were not attributed to Site Remediation
source category emissions, but rather were emitted
from other emission points at the facility. These
pollutants were profiled as part of model plant
emissions because the facility otherwise emits
environmental HAP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
If emission concentrations from a
facility do not exceed the Tier 2
screening threshold emission rate, the
facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening
assessment and typically is not
evaluated further. If emissions from a
facility exceed the Tier 2 screening
threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health
risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the
environmental screening assessment, we
examine the suitability of the lakes
around the facilities to support life and
remove those that are not suitable (e.g.,
lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for
plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour
time-series assessments. If these Tier 3
adjustments to the screening threshold
emission rates still indicate the
potential for an adverse environmental
effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds
the screening threshold emission rate),
we may elect to conduct a more refined
assessment using more site-specific
information. If, after additional
refinement, the facility emission rate
still exceeds the screening threshold
emission rate, the facility may have the
potential to cause an adverse
environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect from lead,
we compared the average modeled air
concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead
around each facility in the source
category to the level of the secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for lead. The secondary lead
NAAQS is a reasonable means of
evaluating environmental risk because it
is set to provide substantial protection
against adverse welfare effects which
can include ‘‘effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and
climate, damage to and deterioration of
property, and hazards to transportation,
as well as effects on economic values
and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk
Methodology
The environmental screening
assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced
productivity of plants due to chronic
exposure to HF and HCl. The
environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares
modeled ambient air concentrations
(from AERMOD) to the ecological
benchmarks for each acid gas. To
identify a potential adverse
environmental effect (as defined in
section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46149
emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate
the following metrics: the size of the
modeled area around each facility that
exceeds the ecological benchmark for
each acid gas, in acres and km2; the
percentage of the modeled area around
each facility that exceeds the ecological
benchmark for each acid gas; and the
area-weighted average screening value
around each facility (Calculated by
dividing the area-weighted average
concentration over the 50-km modeling
domain by the ecological benchmark for
each acid gas). For further information
on the environmental screening
assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of
the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Site Remediation Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide
assessments?
To put the source category risks in
context, we typically examine the risks
from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the
facility includes all HAP-emitting
operations within a contiguous area and
under common control. In other words,
we examine the HAP emissions not only
from the source category emission
points of interest, but also emissions of
HAP from all other emission sources at
the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we
conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset that the EPA compiled
from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI
data for the facility and did not adjust
any category or ‘‘non-category’’ data.
Therefore, there could be differences in
the dataset from that used for the source
category assessments described in this
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the
inhalation of HAP that are emitted
‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations
residing within 50 km of each facility,
consistent with the methods used for
the source category analysis described
above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, we made a reasonable attempt
to identify the source category risks, and
these risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the
portion of facility-wide risks that could
be attributed to the source category
addressed in this proposal. We also
specifically examined the facility that
was associated with the highest estimate
of risk and determined the percentage of
that risk attributable to the source
category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation
Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, available through the docket for
this action, provides the methodology
and results of the facility-wide analyses,
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46150
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category
contribution to facility-wide risks.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
8. How do we consider uncertainties in
risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias
are inherent in all risk assessments,
including those performed for this
proposal. Although uncertainty exists,
we believe that our approach, which
used conservative tools and
assumptions, ensures that our decisions
are health and environmentally
protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions
dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation
exposure estimates, and dose-response
relationships follows below. Also
included are those uncertainties specific
to our acute screening assessments,
multipathway screening assessments,
and our environmental risk screening
assessments. A more thorough
discussion of these uncertainties is
included in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation
Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action. If a multipathway sitespecific assessment was performed for
this source category, a full discussion of
the uncertainties associated with that
assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific
Human Health Multipathway Residual
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions
Dataset
Although the development of the RTR
emissions dataset involved quality
assurance/quality control processes, the
accuracy of emissions values will vary
depending on the source of the data, the
degree to which data are incomplete or
missing, the degree to which
assumptions made to complete the
datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The
emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for
certain years, and they do not reflect
short-term fluctuations during the
course of a year or variations from year
to year. The estimates of peak hourly
emission rates for the acute effects
screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to
the average annual hourly emission
rates, which are intended to account for
emission fluctuations due to normal
facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in
ambient concentration estimates
associated with any model, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
the EPA’s recommended regulatory
dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a
model to estimate ambient pollutant
concentrations, the user chooses certain
options to apply. For RTR assessments,
we select some model options that have
the potential to overestimate ambient air
concentrations (e.g., not including
plume depletion or pollutant
transformation). We select other model
options that have the potential to
underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not
including building downwash). Other
options that we select have the potential
to either under- or overestimate ambient
levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor
locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties
commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion
models, the approach we apply in the
RTR assessments should yield unbiased
estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the
selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the
risk estimates. As we continue to update
and expand our library of
meteorological station data used in our
risk assessments, we expect to reduce
this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
Assessment
Although every effort is made to
identify all of the relevant facilities and
emission points, as well as to develop
accurate estimates of the annual
emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory
likely dominate the uncertainties in the
exposure assessment. Some
uncertainties in our exposure
assessment include human mobility,
using the centroid of each census block,
assuming lifetime exposure, and
assuming only outdoor exposures. For
most of these factors, there is neither an
under nor overestimate when looking at
the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the
distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures,
actual exposures may not be as high if
people spend time indoors, especially
for very reactive pollutants or larger
particles. For all factors, we reduce
uncertainty when possible. For
example, with respect to census-block
centroids, we analyze large blocks using
aerial imagery and adjust locations of
the block centroids to better represent
the population in the blocks. We also
add additional receptor locations where
the population of a block is not well
represented by a single location.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response
Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in
the development of the dose-response
values used in our risk assessments for
cancer effects from chronic exposures
and noncancer effects from both chronic
and acute exposures. Some
uncertainties are generally expressed
quantitatively, and others are generally
expressed in qualitative terms. We note,
as a preface to this discussion, a point
on dose-response uncertainty that is
stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely,
that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is
protection of human health;
accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk
assessment procedures, including
default options that are used in the
absence of scientific data to the
contrary, should be health protective’’
(the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7).
This is the approach followed here as
summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk
assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper
bound estimate of risk.17 That is, they
represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the
true value of a quantity’’ (although this
is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some
circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other
circumstances the risk could be
greater.18 Chronic noncancer RfC and
reference dose (RfD) values represent
chronic exposure levels that are
intended to be health-protective levels.
To derive dose-response values that are
intended to be ‘‘without appreciable
risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an
uncertainty factor (UF) approach,19
which considers uncertainty, variability,
and gaps in the available data. The UFs
are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect
against appreciable risk of deleterious
effects.
Many of the UFs used to account for
variability and uncertainty in the
development of acute dose-response
values are quite similar to those
17 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_
internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?
details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
18 An exception to this is the URE for benzene,
which is considered to cover a range of values, each
end of which is considered to be equally plausible,
and which is based on maximum likelihood
estimates.
19 See A Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA,
December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of
Inhalation Reference Concentrations and
Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA,
1994.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
developed for chronic durations.
Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in
extrapolation from observations at one
exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to
derive an acute dose-response value at
another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).
Not all acute dose-response values are
developed for the same purpose, and
care must be taken when interpreting
the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the
dose-response value or values being
exceeded. Where relevant to the
estimated exposures, the lack of acute
dose-response values at different levels
of severity should be factored into the
risk characterization as potential
uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the
selection of ecological benchmarks for
the environmental risk screening
assessment. We established a hierarchy
of preferred benchmark sources to allow
selection of benchmarks for each
environmental HAP at each ecological
assessment endpoint. We searched for
benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e.,
no-effects level, threshold-effect level,
and probable effect level), but not all
combinations of ecological assessment/
environmental HAP had benchmarks for
all three effect levels. Where multiple
effect levels were available for a
particular HAP and assessment
endpoint, we used all of the available
effect levels to help us determine
whether risk exists and whether the risk
could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to
identify appropriate human health effect
dose-response values for all pollutants
emitted by the sources in this risk
assessment, some HAP emitted by this
source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly,
these pollutants cannot be included in
the quantitative risk assessment, which
could result in quantitative estimates
understating HAP risk. To help to
alleviate this potential underestimate,
where we conclude similarity with a
HAP for which a dose-response value is
available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP
for which no value is available. To the
extent use of surrogates indicates
appreciable risk, we may identify a need
to increase priority for an IRIS
assessment for that substance. We
additionally note that, generally
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due
to environmental exposures and hazard
are those for which dose-response
assessments have been performed,
reducing the likelihood of understating
risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
qualitatively and considered in the risk
characterization that informs the risk
management decisions, including
consideration of HAP reductions
achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are
unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we
conservatively use the most protective
dose-response value of an individual
compound in that group to estimate
risk. Similarly, for an individual
compound in a group (e.g., ethylene
glycol diethyl ether) that does not have
a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response
value from the other compounds in the
group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation
Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties
highlighted above, there are several
factors specific to the acute exposure
assessment that the EPA conducts as
part of the risk review under section 112
of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute
inhalation exposure assessment
depends on the simultaneous
occurrence of independent factors that
may vary greatly, such as hourly
emissions rates, meteorology, and the
presence of a person. In the acute
screening assessment that we conduct
under the RTR program, we assume that
peak emissions from the source category
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion
conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional
assumption that a person is located at
this point at the same time. For this
source category, together, these
assumptions represent a reasonable
worst-case exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would
be located at the point of maximum
exposure during the time when peak
emissions and reasonable worst-case air
dispersion conditions occur
simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway
and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we
generally rely on site-specific levels of
PB–HAP or environmental HAP
emissions to determine whether a
refined assessment of the impacts from
multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an
environmental screening assessment.
This determination is based on the
results of a three-tiered screening
assessment that relies on the outputs
from models—TRIM.FaTE and
AERMOD—that estimate environmental
pollutant concentrations and human
exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins,
POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46151
and two acid gases (HF and hydrogen
chloride). For lead, we use AERMOD to
determine ambient air concentrations,
which are then compared to the
secondary NAAQS standard for lead.
Two important types of uncertainty
associated with the use of these models
in RTR risk assessments and inherent to
any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model
uncertainty and input uncertainty.20
Model uncertainty concerns whether
the model adequately represents the
actual processes (e.g., movement and
accumulation) that might occur in the
environment. For example, does the
model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the
soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult
to quantify. However, based on feedback
received from previous EPA SAB
reviews and other reviews, we are
confident that the models used in the
screening assessments are appropriate
and state-of-the-art for the multipathway
and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of
RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with
how accurately the models have been
configured and parameterized for the
assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the
multipathway and environmental
screening assessments, we configured
the models to avoid underestimating
exposure and risk. This was
accomplished by selecting upper-end
values from nationally representative
datasets for the more influential
parameters in the environmental model,
including selection and spatial
configuration of the area of interest, lake
location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure
of the aquatic food web. We also assume
an ingestion exposure scenario and
values for human exposure factors that
represent reasonable maximum
exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and
environmental screening assessments,
we refine the model inputs to account
for meteorological patterns in the
vicinity of the facility versus using
upper-end national values, and we
identify the actual location of lakes near
the facility rather than the default lake
location that we apply in Tier 1. By
refining the screening approach in Tier
2 to account for local geographical and
meteorological data, we decrease the
likelihood that concentrations in
20 In the context of this discussion, the term
‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk
encompasses both variability in the range of
expected inputs and screening results due to
existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well
as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate
the true result.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46152
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
environmental media are overestimated,
thereby increasing the usefulness of the
screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the
model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume rise and the height of the
mixing layer. We can also use those
hour-by-hour meteorological data in a
TRIM.FaTE run using the screening
configuration corresponding to the lake
location. These refinements produce a
more accurate estimate of chemical
concentrations in the media of interest,
thereby reducing the uncertainty with
those estimates. The assumptions and
the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario
are the same for all three tiers.
For the environmental screening
assessment for acid gases, we employ a
single-tiered approach. We use the
modeled air concentrations and
compare those with ecological
benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and
environmental screening assessments,
our approach to addressing model input
uncertainty is generally cautious. We
choose model inputs from the upper
end of the range of possible values for
the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the
exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total
exposure. This approach reduces the
likelihood of not identifying high risks
for adverse impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when
individual pollutants or facilities do not
exceed screening threshold emission
rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident
that the potential for adverse
multipathway impacts on human health
is very low. On the other hand, when
individual pollutants or facilities do
exceed screening threshold emission
rates, it does not mean that impacts are
significant, only that we cannot rule out
that possibility and that a refined
assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk
characterization for the source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP
in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening
assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury
(both inorganic and methyl mercury),
POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP
represent pollutants that can cause
adverse impacts either through direct
exposure to HAP in the air or through
exposure to HAP that are deposited
from the air onto soils and surface
waters and then through the
environment into the food web. These
HAP represent those HAP for which we
can conduct a meaningful multipathway
or environmental screening risk
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
assessment. For other HAP not included
in our screening assessments, the model
has not been parameterized such that it
can be used for that purpose. In some
cases, depending on the HAP, we may
not have appropriate multipathway
models that allow us to predict the
concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond
these that we are evaluating may have
the potential to cause adverse effects
and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate
other relevant HAP in the future, as
modeling science and resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)?
To ensure that CAA section 112
standards apply at all times, the EPA is
proposing to add provisions for pressure
relief device (PRD) releases and for
bypass lines on closed vent systems.
The results and proposed decisions
based on the analyses performed
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) are presented below.
The acronym ‘‘PRD’’ means pressure
relief device and is common vernacular
to describe the variety of devices
regulated as PRDs or valves (see the end
of this section for our proposed addition
of the definition for ‘‘pressure relief
device’’ or ‘‘valve,’’ to provide clarity).
PRDs are designed to remain closed
during normal operation, but they may
‘‘actuate’’ (e.g., the valve seat opens or
a rupture disk ruptures) in the event of
an overpressure in the system caused by
operator error, a malfunction such as a
power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected cause that results in
immediate venting of gas from process
equipment in order to avoid safety
hazards or equipment damage. For the
Site Remediation source category,
emissions vented directly to the
atmosphere from a PRD actuation in
remediation material service may
contain HAP that would have been
subject to control under the Site
Remediation NESHAP, if the PRD
actuation had not occurred (e.g.,
through a process vent standard).
However, the EPA recognizes that the
characteristics of a release from a PRD
may be different from HAP emission
generated from remediation processes
under typical operating conditions (i.e.,
non malfunction) and which are routed
through a process vent.
The Site Remediation NESHAP
currently regulates fugitive emissions
from PRDs, when they are seated,
through the equipment leak provisions.
The equipment leak provisions also
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
require that the PRD be returned to a
condition of no detectable emissions,
after a pressure release; however, these
equipment leak provisions do not
establish a standard for emissions
releases from a PRD when the PRD
actuates. In addition, the current Site
Remediation NESHAP follows the EPA’s
previous practice of exempting SSM
events from otherwise applicable
emission standards. Consequently, with
emissions releases from a PRD release
actuation event treated as a type of
malfunction, the Site Remediation
NESHAP did not restrict emissions
releases from a PRD actuation event to
the atmosphere (i.e., they were exempt
from the otherwise applicable emission
standards). In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court
determined SSM exemptions in section
112 standards violate the CAA. Section
IV.E.2 of this preamble contains
additional discussions on the removal of
the SSM exemptions for this source
category.
We evaluated the Site Remediation
NESHAP provisions for PRDs to ensure
a standard continuously applies during
malfunctions that result in an emissions
release from a PRD actuation event,
consistent with the Sierra Club v. EPA
decision. First, we determined that
emissions releases from PRD actuation
events that vent to a closed vent system
and control device are appropriately
regulated. We are proposing at 40 CFR
63.7923 that emissions releases from a
PRD actuation event routed through a
closed vent system to a control device
or to a process, fuel gas system, or drain
system must meet the requirements at
40 CFR 63.7925 to 40 CFR 63.7928 for
the applicable control system.
Second, the EPA determined that
emissions from PRD actuation events
that vent directly to the atmosphere as
the result of a malfunction may not meet
an applicable emission standard for this
source category. Therefore, we
examined whether it would be feasible
to establish a numeric emission
standard for emissions releases from
PRD actuation events that vent directly
to the atmosphere.
As detailed here, we determined it is
not feasible to regulate emissions from
PRD actuation events through a numeric
emission standard, and, therefore, it is
more appropriate to regulate emissions
releases from PRD events that vent to
the atmosphere through work practice
standards under CAA section 112(h),
established consistent with CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA is proposing
work practice standards at 40 CFR
63.7923 that are intended to reduce the
number of emissions releases from PRD
actuation events and will incentivize
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
owners or operators to eliminate the
causes of emissions releases from PRD
actuation events that vent directly to the
atmosphere.
When the EPA initially promulgated
the Site Remediation NESHAP, it did
not consider malfunction events when
establishing emissions standards for the
various emissions sources at site
remediation facilities. In undertaking
that consideration now, we propose that
it is not feasible to regulate emissions
releases from PRD actuation events that
vent to the atmosphere using numeric
emission limits due to technological and
economic limitations that make it
impracticable to measure emissions
from PRDs which have actuated. CAA
section 112(h)(1) states that the EPA
may prescribe a work practice standard
or other requirement, consistent with
the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or
(f), in those cases where, in the
judgment of the Administrator, it is not
feasible to enforce an emission standard.
CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) further defines
the term ‘‘not feasible’’ in this context
as meaning that ‘‘the application of
measurement technology to a particular
class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic
limitations.’’ We consider it appropriate
to establish a work practice standard for
emissions releases from PRD actuation
events that vent to the atmosphere as
provided in CAA section 112(h),
because the application of a
measurement methodology for
emissions releases from PRD actuation
events that vent directly to the
atmosphere is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.
As discussed previously, PRDs are
designed to remain closed during
normal operations and release emissions
only during nonroutine and unplanned
events, and the venting time can be very
short and may vary widely in emissions
composition and flow rate.
Additionally, it would be
economically prohibitive to construct an
appropriate conveyance and install and
operate continuous monitoring systems
for each individual PRD that vents
directly to the atmosphere in order to
attempt to quantitatively measure an
actuation release event that may occur
infrequently. See U.S. v. Sugar Corp.,
830 F.3d 579, 664–67 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Further, we have not identified any
available, technically feasible
continuous emission monitoring system
that can accurately determine a mass
release quantity of HAP given the flow,
composition, and compositional
variability of potential PRD releases that
vent directly to the atmosphere from
remediation units. Rather, we have
identified only monitoring systems
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
capable of alerting an owner or operator
when an emissions release from a PRD
actuation event occurs. Consequently,
we propose that it is appropriate to
establish a work practice standard for
emissions releases from PRD actuation
event that vent directly to the
atmosphere as provided in CAA section
112(h).
We next reviewed information about
site remediation facilities to determine
how the best performers are minimizing
emissions releases from PRD actuation
events that vent directly to the
atmosphere. A review of the title V
operating permits for facilities subject to
the Site Remediation NESHAP indicated
that many facilities are subject to the
Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions (CAP) rule (40 CFR 68.215
requires permits to list 40 CFR part 68
as an applicable requirement, if subject)
for at least some portion of the facility.
As a result, we further reviewed this
rule for consideration in developing a
PRD work practice standard.
The CAP rule requires facilities to
develop a Risk Management Plan that
includes a hazard assessment, an
accident prevention program and an
emergency response program. The CAP
rule includes three program levels
which dictate the requirements for the
hazard assessment, accident prevention
program and emergency response
program based on the types of chemicals
and processes used at a facility. If the
applicability of the CAP rule extends to
site remediation affected facilities, the
facilities would fall under either
prevention program level 1 or 3
(depending on a facility’s NAICS code).
We evaluated program 3, which is more
stringent, because based on a review of
the rule’s applicability requirements
and preamble rationale, it is our
understanding that site remediation
facilities may not be subject to the
program 1 criteria. We also chose to
evaluate program 3 because if any
facility is subject to program 3 and the
Site Remediation NESHAP, those
sources would be the best performers in
the source category, requisite for a
MACT determination. The program 3
prevention program includes:
Documentation of process safety
information, conducting a hazard
analysis, documentation of operating
procedures, employee training, on-going
maintenance, and incident
investigations. The process safety
information documented must include
information pertaining to the hazards of
the regulated substances in the process,
the technology of the process, and the
process equipment (including relief
valves). When conducting the hazard
analysis, facilities must identify,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46153
evaluate, and control the hazards in the
process. Facilities that use controls may
consider the application of detection
methodologies (e.g., process monitoring
and control instrumentation) to provide
early warning of releases. The operating
procedures must address multiple
operating scenarios (e.g., normal
operations, startup, emergency
shutdown) and provide instructions for
safely conducting process activities. The
acts of conducting the hazard analysis
and documenting operating procedures
are similar to prevention measures,
discussed below, though we note a
specific number of measures or controls
is not specified for the program 3
prevention program. Incident
investigations must document the
factors that contributed to an incident
and any resolutions and corrective
actions (incident investigations are
consistent with analysis of the cause of
the release and corrective measures,
discussed below). Facilities are also
required to document this information
in a Risk Management Plan that must be
updated at least every 5 years.
Next, we considered that some
companies operating site remediation
facilities also own and operate
petroleum refineries or chemical
production facilities and may have
established company-wide best
practices as a result of specific state and
Federal requirements. For example,
petroleum refineries located in certain
counties in California are subject to and
complying with specific requirements
for PRDs such as the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Rule 8–28–304 and South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1173. These rules also
formed the basis of the work practice
standards promulgated for emissions
releases from PRD actuation events at
petroleum refineries in the recent
Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR
performed by the EPA (80 FR 75178,
December 1, 2015).
Considering our review of the EPA’s
Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions and company-wide best
practices that site remediation facilities
may have implemented, we expect that
the best performing site remediation
facilities have implemented a program
for emissions releases from PRD
actuation events that vent directly to the
atmosphere that consists of conducting
an analysis of the cause of the PRD
actuation event and the implementation
of corrective measures. We used this
information as the basis of the work
practice standards that we are proposing
at 40 CFR 63.7923.
Specifically, we are proposing a limit
on the number of emissions releases
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46154
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
from PRD actuation events that if
exceeded, would result in a violation to
the work practice standard for emissions
releases for PRD actuation events that
vent directly to the atmosphere. We
believe setting criteria to determine a
deviation is necessary for the work
practice to be effective. We considered
limits on the number of emissions
releases from PRD actuation events over
a 3-year period. Based on a Monte Carlo
analysis of random rare events
(conducted for the Petroleum Refinery
Sector MACT), we note that a facility is
likely to have two or three events in an
average 5-year period when a long timehorizon (e.g., 20 years) is considered.
Therefore, we are proposing to limit the
number of emissions releases from a
PRD actuation event from a single PRD
to either two or three (depending on the
PRD release actuation event cause) in a
3-year period as the basis of a deviation
of the work practice standard. We
considered it reasonable to use a 3-year
period rather than a 5-year period given
that company-wide best practices
forming the basis of the work practice
standards promulgated for emissions
releases from PRD actuation events at
petroleum refineries are also our
underlying basis for the proposed work
practice standards at site remediation
facilities. We are proposing that it is a
deviation of the work practice standard
if a single PRD that vents emissions
from an actuation event directly to the
atmosphere has two releases within a 3year period due to the same cause. We
believe this provision will help ensure
that analyses and corrective actions are
conducted effectively. Otherwise, we
are proposing that it is a deviation of the
work practice standard if a single PRD
that vents emissions from an actuation
event directly to the atmosphere has
three releases within a 3-year period for
any reason. In addition, we are
proposing that any emissions release
directly to the atmosphere from a PRD
actuation event for which the cause was
determined to be operator error or poor
maintenance is a violation of the work
practice standard. We are proposing that
‘‘force majeure’’ events would not be
included when counting the number of
releases. We are proposing to define
‘‘Force majeure’’ as including events
resulting from natural disasters, acts of
war or terrorism, or external power
curtailment beyond the facility’s
control. These types of events are
beyond the control of the owner or
operator. We are providing that these
events should not be included in the
event count, but that they would be
subject to the PRD actuation event cause
analysis in order to confirm or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
determine whether the release was due
to a force majeure event.
In addition, consistent with our
treatment of site remediation process
vents (in general, an open PRD is
essentially the same as a site
remediation process vent that is vented
directly to the atmosphere), we believe
it is appropriate to exclude certain types
of PRDs that have very low potential to
emit based on their type of service, size,
and/or pressure from the proposed work
practice standard for PRD releases that
vent directly to the atmosphere. Both
the CAP and the California petroleum
refinery PRD rules also exempt or
impose simpler requirements for certain
PRDs. We are proposing at 40 CFR
63.7923 that the following types of PRDs
would not be subject to the work
practice standard for PRDs that vent
directly to the atmosphere: (1) PRDs in
heavy liquid service; (2) PRDs that are
designed solely to release due to liquid
thermal expansion; and (3) pilotoperated and balanced bellows PRDs if
the primary release valve associated
with the PRD is vented through a
control system. With regard to PRDs in
heavy liquid service and thermal relief
valves, any release of HAP to the
atmosphere from a PRD in heavy liquid
service would be expected to be small.
We are also proposing that pilotoperated PRDs (where emissions from
actuation events can be released to the
atmosphere through a pilot discharge
vent) and balanced bellow PRDs (where
emissions can be released to the
atmosphere through a bonnet vent) are
not subject to the work practice
standard, if the primary release valve
associated with the PRD is vented
through a control system. Due to its
design, which includes a bellows to
shield the pressure relief stem and top
portion of the valve seat from the
discharge vent pressure, a balanced
bellows PRD will not discharge gas to
the atmosphere during a pressure
release actuation event, except for
potential leaks through the bonnet vent
due to bellows failure or fatigue which
are not considered PRD actuation. Pilotoperated PRDs use a small pilot safety
valve that discharges to the atmosphere
to actuate the primary valve or piston,
which then discharges to a control
system. The EPA considers balanced
bellows and pilot operated PRDs to be
equipment that safely controls the
primary PRD release and reduces HAP
emissions to the atmosphere.
The PRDs subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP that vent to a
control device are exempt from LDAR.
The PRDs that vent to the atmosphere
are subject to the LDAR provisions of
either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
UU. Similar to the current provisions,
the proposed LDAR provisions for PRDs
require all PRDs that vent to the
atmosphere be tested using EPA Method
21 to ensure the PRD is not leaking
above the detection threshold during
normal operation and to ensure it
properly reseats if a release does occur.
Those PRDs that vent to control systems
would still be exempt from LDAR
requirements given that if a release were
to occur from this specific class of PRDs,
it would vent to a closed vent system
and control device.
Finally, to ensure compliance with
the proposed work practice standard for
emissions released from PRD actuation
events that vent directly to the
atmosphere, we are also proposing to
require that sources monitor these PRDs
using a system that is capable of
identifying and recording the time and
duration of each pressure release and of
notifying operators that a pressure
release is occurring. Pressure release
actuation events from PRDs that vent
directly to the atmosphere have the
potential to emit large quantities of
HAP. When a pressure release occurs, it
is important to identify and mitigate it
as quickly as possible. We are proposing
to allow owners and operators to use a
range of methods to satisfy the PRD
actuation detection requirements,
including the use of a parameter
monitoring system (that may already be
in place) on the process that is sufficient
to indicate that a pressure release has
occurred as well as record the time and
duration of that pressure release. For the
purposes of estimating the costs of this
requirement, we assume that all PRDs
that would become subject to the
proposed standards already have a
process or parameter monitoring system
that will indicate the time that a
pressure release has occurred and the
duration of the release.
As part of these proposed provisions,
we are proposing to add definitions for
‘‘pressure release actuation event’’ and
‘‘pressure relief device or valve,’’ to 40
CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. We are
also proposing to remove the definition
of ‘‘safety device’’ and the provisions
related to safety devices from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGGG, which would
overlap and be redundant with parts of
the proposed definition of ‘‘pressure
relief device or valve’’ and the
provisions related to these devices. To
our knowledge, pressure relief devices
or valves are the only relevant safety
devices used in site remediation
processes.
The Agency recognizes that the
treatment of PRDs should be appropriate
to the characteristics of the relevant
source category and need not be
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
uniform across all source categories. In
developing this proposal, the EPA was
mindful of the limited information it
has with respect to PRDs in site
remediation and the diversity of site
characteristics. The EPA seeks comment
on whether there are PRDs associated
with affected facility process vents,
tanks, containers, separators, or closed
vent systems, and whether PRDs
associated with those affected facilities
are routed to a control device through a
closed vent system or vent to the
atmosphere. The EPA seeks comment on
whether facilities that are subject to the
Site Remediation NESHAP are also
subject to EPA’s CAP at 40 CFR part 68,
OSHA’s Process Safety Management
rule at 29 CFR 1910.119, BAAQMD Rule
8–28–304, or SCAQMD Rule 1173, and
if the latter set of rules extend to cover
PRDs associated with site remediation.
The EPA has proposed MACT work
practice standards for PRDs that vent to
the atmosphere based on the best
performing sources that are subject to
the other similar NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart CC-Petroleum Refineries,
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD—Offsite
Waste and Recovery Operations). The
EPA seeks comment on whether these
MACT work practice standards for PRDs
are appropriate for site remediation.
For the purposes of estimating the
costs of this requirement, we have
assumed that operators have existing
systems that are capable of identifying
a pressure release to the atmosphere and
recording the time and duration of the
event. The EPA has further assumed
there is one PRD per site remediation
facility, and one pressure event every 3
years that would cause the PRD to
actuate, triggering an analysis of the
cause of the pressure release actuation
event and the need for corrective
measures. The EPA seeks comment on
these assumptions. (Comment C–2)
Whether or not data and comments
substantiate that there are currently
PRDs at site remediation facilities, the
EPA may adopt provisions addressing
PRDs if we conclude that future siteremediation affected facilities may use
these devices.
For further details on the assumptions
and methodologies used in this analysis,
see the technical memorandum titled
Review of Regulatory Alternatives for
Certain Vent Streams in the Site
Remediation Source Category, which is
in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0833.
B. What are the results of the risk
assessment and analyses for affected
sources?
As described above, for the Site
Remediation source category, we
conducted an inhalation risk assessment
46155
for all HAP emitted, a multipathway
screening assessment for the PB–HAP
emitted, and an environmental risk
screening assessment for the PB–HAP
and acid gases (e.g., HCl) emitted from
affected sources. We present results of
the risk assessment briefly below and in
more detail in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation
Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment
Results
The results of the chronic baseline
inhalation cancer risk assessment
indicate that, based on estimates of
current actual and allowable emissions,
the MIR posed by the Site Remediation
source category is 1-in-1 million driven
by site remediation model plant
emissions of arsenic compounds and
chromium (VI) compounds. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on
actual and allowable emission levels is
0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or 1
case every 1,000 years. The population
exposed to cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million considering
actual and allowable emissions is 400
(see Table 2 of this preamble). In
addition, the maximum chronic
noncancer HI (TOSHI) is less than 1.
TABLE 2—SITE REMEDIATION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES
Estimated
population at
increased risk
of cancer
≥1-in-1 million
Maximum
individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million)
Number of facilities 1
Estimated annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
Maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI
Maximum
screening acute
noncancer HQ
Based on Actual Emissions Level 2 3
102 ........................................
1
400
0.001
0.1
HQREL = 1
(arsenic compounds).
Based on Whole Facility Emissions
1,000
1
2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
3
2,300,000
0.5
5
Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk
Assessment Results
which is available in the docket for this
action.
As presented in Table 2 of this
preamble, acute exposure to emissions
from affected sources in the Site
Remediation source category result in a
maximum HQ of 1 based on the REL for
arsenic compounds. For more detailed
acute risk results refer to the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Site
Remediation Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule,
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
The results of the multipathway risk
screening assessment indicate all Tier 2
screening values for PB–HAP emitted
from the source category (arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds,
mercury compounds, and POM) are less
than 1. Based on these results, we are
confident that the cancer risks due to
multipathway exposures to these
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
chemicals are lower than 1-in-1 million
and the noncancer HIs are less than 1.
In the case of lead, the multipathway
risks were assessed by comparing
modeled ambient lead concentrations
against the primary NAAQS for lead.
The results of this analysis indicate that,
based on actual and allowable
emissions, the maximum annual off-site
ambient lead concentration is 0.0001 mg/
m3, well below the primary NAAQS of
0.15 mg/m3.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46156
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The ecological risk screening
assessment indicated all modeled points
were below the Tier 1 screening
thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of PB–HAP (arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds,
mercury compounds, and POM) and
acid gases (HCl and HF) emitted by the
source category.
In the case of lead, the environmental
risks were assessed by comparing
modeled ambient lead concentrations
against the secondary NAAQS for lead.
The results of this analysis indicate that,
based on actual and allowable
emissions, the maximum annual off-site
ambient lead concentrations were below
the secondary NAAQS.
Based on the results of the
environmental risk screening
assessment, we would not expect
environmental risks due to emissions
from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of whole-facility (or
‘‘facility-wide) risks was performed as
described above to characterize the
source category risk in the context of
facility-wide risks.21 Facility-wide risks
were estimated using the NEI-based
data. The maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk posed by the 102 facilities,
based on facility-wide emissions, is
1,000-in-1 million, with ethylene oxide
emissions from facility-wide flares,
transfer racks, vents, and fugitive
emissions driving the risk. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on
whole facility emissions is 0.5 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case
in every 2 years. Approximately
2,300,000 people are estimated to have
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from
facility-wide HAP emissions. Facilitywide lifetime individual cancer risks are
estimated to be greater than or equal to
100-in-1 million at three facilities and
55,000 people would be exposed at or
above this risk level. Additional details
on this determination can be found in
the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Site Remediation Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Regarding the facility-wide risks due
to ethylene oxide (described above),
which are due to emission sources that
are not part of the Site Remediation
source category, we intend to evaluate
those facility-wide estimated emissions
and risks further and may address these
in a separate future action, as
appropriate. In particular, the EPA is
addressing ethylene oxide based on the
results of the latest NATA released in
August 2018, which identified the
chemical as a potential concern in
several areas across the country. (NATA
is the Agency’s nationwide air toxics
screening tool, designed to help the EPA
and state, local, and tribal air agencies
identify areas, pollutants, or types of
sources for further examination.) The
latest NATA estimates that ethylene
oxide significantly contributes to
potential elevated cancer risks in some
census tracts across the U.S. (less than
1 percent of the total number of tracts).
These elevated risks are largely driven
by an EPA risk value that was updated
in late 2016. The EPA will work with
industry and state, local, and tribal air
agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged
approach to address ethylene oxide
emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as
appropriate, revising CAA regulations
for facilities that emit ethylene oxide—
starting with air toxics emissions
standards for miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing facilities and
commercial sterilizers; and (2)
conducting site-specific risk
assessments and, as necessary,
implementing emission control
strategies for targeted high-risk facilities.
The EPA will post updates on its work
to address ethylene oxide on its website
at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
Regarding the noncancer risk
assessment, the maximum chronic
noncancer HI associated with facilitywide emissions is estimated to be 5 due
to natural gas external combustion
boiler emissions of chlorine. A total of
three facilities had a facility-wide
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1;
two due to emissions of chlorine and
one due to emissions of
trichloroethylene.
6. What demographic groups might
benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any
environmental justice issues that might
be associated with the source category,
we performed a demographic analysis,
which is an assessment of risk to
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 km and
within 50 km of the facilities. In the
analysis, we evaluated the distribution
of HAP-related cancer and noncancer
risk from the Site Remediation source
category across different demographic
groups within the populations living
near facilities.22
The results of the demographic
analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various
demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions
levels for the population living within
50 km of the facilities.
TABLE 3—SITE REMEDIATION: DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS—50 KM STUDY AREA RADIUS
Population with
cancer risk at
or above 1-in-1
million due to
site remediation
Nationwide
Total Population .........................................................................................................
Population with
chronic hi above
1 due to site
remediation
317,746,049
374
0
62
38
83
17
0
0
12
0.8
14
0.4
0
0
Race by Percent
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
White ..........................................................................................................................
Minority ......................................................................................................................
Minority by Percent
African American .......................................................................................................
Native American ........................................................................................................
21 The facility-wide risk assessment includes all
emission points within the Site Remediation source
category (including those for which there are no
standards) as well as other emission points covered
by other NESHAP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
22 Demographic groups included in the analysis
are: White, African American, Native American,
Hispanic or Latino, other races and multiracial,
people living below the poverty level, people living
above the poverty level, adults without a high
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
school diploma, adults with a high school diploma,
and linguistically isolated people.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
46157
TABLE 3—SITE REMEDIATION: DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS—50 KM STUDY AREA RADIUS—Continued
Population with
cancer risk at
or above 1-in-1
million due to
site remediation
Nationwide
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) .....................................................
Other and Multiracial .................................................................................................
Population with
chronic hi above
1 due to site
remediation
18
7
0
2
0
0
14
86
13
87
0
0
14
86
11
89
0
0
6
0
0
Income by Percent
Below Poverty Level ..................................................................................................
Above Poverty Level ..................................................................................................
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without High School Diploma ...............................................................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .................................................................
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
Linguistically Isolated .................................................................................................
The results of the Site Remediation
source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 400
people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in1 million and no people to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
percentages of the at-risk population in
each demographic group (except for
White) are similar to or lower than their
respective nationwide percentages with
the exception of the African American,
Above Poverty Level, and Over 25 and
with a High School Diploma
demographic groups, which are slightly
higher than their respective nationwide
percentages.
The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review—Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Site Remediation Source
Category Operations, available in the
docket for this action.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. What are our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effect?
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
1. Risk Acceptability
We weigh all health risk factors in our
risk acceptability determination,
including the cancer MIR, the number of
persons in various cancer and
noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence,
the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the
maximum acute noncancer HQ, the
extent of noncancer risk, the
distribution of cancer and noncancer
risks in the exposed population, and
risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR
38044, September 14, 1989).
For the Site Remediation source
category, the risk analysis indicates that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
for affected sources, the cancer risk to
the individual most exposed is 1-in-1
million from both actual and allowable
emissions. These risks are considerably
less than 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive upper limit of acceptable
risk. The risk analysis for affected
sources also estimated a cancer
incidence of 0.001 excess cancer cases
per year, or 1 case every 1,000 years.
Exposures to HAP with noncancer
health effects are estimated to result in
a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
below 1 (0.1), as well as a maximum
acute HQ value of 1. Multipathway
screening values for affected sources are
below a level of concern for both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PB–
HAP as well as emissions of lead
compounds. Considering all the health
risk information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties, we
propose to find that risk from the
affected facilities in the Site
Remediation source category subject to
the Site Remediation NESHAP is
acceptable.
Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, we evaluated the cost and
feasibility of available control
technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology
review) that could be applied in this
source category to further reduce the
risks (or potential risks) due to
emissions of HAP.
As discussed above, we are proposing
that the risks from this source category
are acceptable. For affected sources, the
maximum cancer risk to the individual
most exposed is 1-in-1 million from
both actual and allowable emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from site remediation processes and
activities. Of the affected sources, two
facilities had cancer risks equal to 1-in1 million. Neither of these facilities had
site remediation emissions reported to
the NEI, and instead risks for both were
based on estimated emissions.
In our ample margin of safety
analysis, we identified three control
options that could further reduce HAP
emissions from the source category. We
evaluated those options to determine
whether any of the three options is
required to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. For
process vents at affected sources, as
discussed in section IV.D of this
preamble, we identified an emissions
control option requiring compliance
with a 98-percent reduction rather than
a 95-percent reduction in HAP
emissions. To assess the maximum
potential for risk reduction that could
result from this process vent control
option, we assumed that the maximum
risks for the site remediation source
category are due to emissions from a
process vent with emissions controlled
at 95-percent. In this scenario, we
estimate that compliance with a
requirement that process vents be 98percent controlled could result in
reducing source category HAP
emissions by between 0.09 and 0.18 tpy
from current emissions levels, with an
incremental cost effectiveness ranging
between $1 million to $2 million/ton
HAP reduction (section IV.D of this
preamble provides further discussion of
the EPA’s cost analysis). We estimate
this option would reduce the MIR at the
MACT-allowable emissions level for the
source category from 1-in-1 million to
0.4-in-1 million, thus, would reduce the
number of people with cancer risks
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46158
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
from 400 to 0. Although the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI was less than
1, this option would further reduce it
from 0.1 to 0.04. We are proposing that
the considerable cost of this option is
not reasonable in light of the minimal
risk reduction achieved. Considering all
of the health risks and other health
information considered in our
determination of risk acceptability, the
minimal risk reductions associated with
this option, the uncertainty associated
with the estimated potential risk
reductions, and the costs associated
with this option, we are proposing that
additional HAP emissions controls for
site remediation process vents are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.
For equipment leaks at affected
sources, as discussed in section IV.D of
this preamble, we identified two
emission control options: Option 1
would require the use of the leak
detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU for valves and pumps,
rather than the thresholds of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT; Option 2 would
require the same as Option 1 but would
also include the connector LDAR
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU. Since actual and MACT-allowable
emissions from equipment leaks are
estimated to be the same, the risk due
to equipment leaks at the MACTallowable level are estimated to be the
same as risk due to equipment leaks at
actual emissions levels. In addition,
based on our analysis of estimated
baseline equipment leak emissions,23
we assumed that half of the equipment
leak emissions are from non-connector
components (i.e., pumps and valves),
and the other half are from connectors.
Under Option 1, we estimate the HAP
reduction would be 4.7 tpy from the
baseline actual emissions level, with a
cost effectiveness of $2,000/ton HAP
reduction. However, baseline risks
associated with equipment leaks are
low, and there would be little change in
Technology Review and Cost Impacts for
the Proposed Amendments to the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
23 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
any of the risk metrics under Option 1.
This option would reduce the MIR from
1-in-1 million to 0.8-in-1 million, and
reduce the maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI from 0.1 to 0.08. In the context
of our ample margin of safety analysis,
we are proposing that imposing this
option is not reasonable in light of the
minimal risk reduction achieved.
Although this option is not required to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, we are proposing
this option as a cost-effective
development under our technology
review. Under Option 2 for equipment
leaks, we estimate the incremental HAP
reduction would be 5 tpy more than
Option 1, with an overall cost
effectiveness of $19,000/ton HAP
reduction and a cost effectiveness
incremental to Option 1 of $35,000/ton
HAP reduction. Similar to option 1, we
found that the control measure would
provide little change to the estimated
risks, but at even higher cost. Therefore,
we are proposing that the cost of the
Option 2 standards is not reasonable
when weighed against the minimal risk
reduction achieved.
In accordance with the approach
established in the Benzene NESHAP,
the EPA weighed all health risk
measures and information considered in
the risk acceptability determination,
along with the costs of emissions
controls and technological feasibility, in
making our ample margin of safety
determination. Considering the health
risk information and the little potential
for risk reduction from control options
identified for this source category, as
well as the high relative cost of that risk
reduction, we propose that the
standards for the Site Remediation
source category provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health.
We request comments on the ample
margin of safety analysis for this source
category.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
Considering the results of our
environmental risk screening, we do not
expect an adverse environmental effect
as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category, and we are proposing
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect.
D. Additional Modeling for Site
Remediation
In addition to assessing risk from
affected facilities, we also conducted an
inhalation risk assessment for all HAP
emitted, a multipathway screening
assessment for the PB–HAP emitted,
and an environmental risk screening
assessment for the PB–HAP and acid
gases (e.g., HCl) emitted from the
CERCLA/RCRA exempt sources.
Although exempt from the regulatory
requirements of the Site Remediation
NESHAP, these facilities are part of the
Site Remediation source category. To
understand the risks from the facilities
exempt from the Site Remediation
NESHAP requirements, these facilities
were analyzed separately for the
purposes of the risk assessment. We
present results of the risk assessment
briefly below and in more detail in the
Residual Risk Assessment for Exempt
Sources in the Site Remediation Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
action.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment
Results
The results of the chronic baseline
inhalation cancer risk assessment
indicate that, based on estimates of
current actual and allowable emissions,
the MIR posed by exempt sources in the
Site Remediation source category is 4in-1 million driven by site remediation
model plant emissions of chromium (VI)
compounds. The total estimated cancer
incidence based on actual and allowable
emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer
cases per year, or 1 case every 1,000
years. The population exposed to cancer
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million considering actual and
allowable emissions is 1,100 (see Table
4 of this preamble). In addition, the
maximum chronic noncancer HI
(TOSHI) is less than 1.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46159
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—SITE REMEDIATION SOURCES INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR EXEMPT SOURCES
Estimated
population at
increased risk
of cancer
≥1-in-1 million
Maximum
individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million)
Number of facilities 1
Estimated annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
Maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI
Maximum
screening acute
noncancer HQ
Based on Actual Emissions Level 2 3
...........................................................
118 .........................................................
4
1,100
...........................................................
0.001
0.3
<1
7
..............................
Based on Whole Facility Emissions
2,000
9,000,000
1
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from exempt sources in the source category.
3 Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk
Assessment Results
As presented in Table 4 of this
preamble, acute exposure to emissions
from exempt sources in the Site
Remediation source category result in a
maximum HQ less than 1. For more
detailed acute risk results refer to the
Residual Risk Assessment for Exempt
Sources in the Site Remediation Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The results of the multipathway risk
screening assessment indicate all Tier 2
screening values for PB–HAP emitted
from exempt sources in the source
category (arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, mercury compounds, and
POM) are less than 1. Based on these
results, we are confident that the cancer
risks due to multipathway exposures to
these chemicals are lower than 1-in-1
million and the noncancer HIs are less
than 1.
In the case of lead, the multipathway
risks were assessed by comparing
modeled ambient lead concentrations
against the primary NAAQS for lead.
The results of this analysis indicate that,
based on actual and allowable
emissions, the maximum annual off-site
ambient lead concentration is 0.004 mg/
m3, well below the primary NAAQS of
0.15 mg/m3.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The ecological risk screening
assessment indicated all modeled points
were below the Tier 1 screening
thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of PB–HAP (arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds,
mercury compounds, and POM) and
acid gases (HCl and HF) emitted by
exempt sources in the source category.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
In the case of lead, the environmental
risks were assessed by comparing
modeled ambient lead concentrations
against the secondary NAAQS for lead.
The results of this analysis indicate that,
based on actual and allowable
emissions, the maximum annual off-site
ambient lead concentrations were below
the secondary NAAQS.
Based on the results of the
environmental risk screening
assessment, we would not expect
environmental risks due to emissions
from these sources.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of whole-facility (or
‘‘facility-wide’’) risks was performed as
described above to characterize the
exempt source risk in the context of
facility-wide risks.24 Facility-wide risks
were estimated using the NEI-based
data. The maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk posed by the 118 facilities,
based on facility-wide emissions, is
2,000-in-1 million with ethylene oxide
from facility-wide flare emissions
driving the risk. The total estimated
cancer incidence from the whole facility
is one excess cancer case per year.
Approximately 9,000,000 people are
estimated to have cancer risks above 1in-1 million from facility-wide HAP
emissions. Eleven facilities and 98,000
people have facility-wide lifetime
individual cancer risk greater than or
equal to 100-in-1 million. Additional
details on this determination can be
found in the Residual Risk Assessment
for Facilities Exempt from the Site
Remediation Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Regarding the facility-wide risks from
exempt facilities due to ethylene oxide
24 The facility-wide risk assessment includes all
emission points from exempt facilities within the
Site Remediation source category (including those
for which there are no standards) as well as other
emission points covered by other NESHAP.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(described above), which are due to
emission sources that are not part of the
Site Remediation source category, we
intend to evaluate those facility-wide
estimated emissions and risks further
and may address these in a separate
future action, as appropriate. In
particular, the EPA is addressing
ethylene oxide based on the results of
the latest NATA released in August
2018, which identified the chemical as
a potential concern in several areas
across the country. (NATA is the
Agency’s nationwide air toxics
screening tool, designed to help the EPA
and state, local, and tribal air agencies
identify areas, pollutants, or types of
sources for further examination.) The
latest NATA estimates that ethylene
oxide significantly contributes to
potential elevated cancer risks in some
census tracts across the U.S. (less than
1 percent of the total number of tracts).
These elevated risks are largely driven
by an EPA risk value that was updated
in late 2016. The EPA will work with
industry and state, local, and tribal air
agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged
approach to address ethylene oxide
emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as
appropriate, revising CAA regulations
for facilities that emit ethylene oxide—
starting with air toxics emissions
standards for miscellaneous organic
chemical manufacturing facilities and
commercial sterilizers; and (2)
conducting site-specific risk
assessments and, as necessary,
implementing emission control
strategies for targeted high-risk facilities.
The EPA will post updates on its work
to address ethylene oxide on its website
at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
Regarding the noncancer risk
assessment, the maximum chronic
noncancer HI associated with facilitywide emissions is estimated to be 7 due
to chemical manufacturing wastewater
treatment emissions of chlorine. A total
of eight facilities had a facility-wide
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46160
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1 due
to emissions of one or more of the
following HAP: chlorine; 2,4-toluene
diisocyanate; hexamethylene-1,6diisocyanate; acrolein;
propionaldehyde; acetaldehyde; and
benzo[a]pyrene.
As discussed in section VI.A.1 of this
preamble, we are not proposing
requirements for facilities exempt from
the emissions control requirements of
the Site Remediation NESHAP in this
action.
E. What are the results and proposed
decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this
preamble, our technology review
focused on identifying developments in
practices, processes, and control
technologies for the emission sources in
the Site Remediation source category.
To identify such developments since the
MACT standards were promulgated, we
consulted the EPA’s RBLC, reviewed
subsequent regulatory development
efforts, reviewed major source operating
permits and minor and synthetic minor
source operating permits, and reviewed
academic and trade literature for control
technologies used in the industry.
For the Site Remediation source
category, we did not identify any
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies for storage tanks,
containers, surface impoundments, oilwater separators, organic-water
separators, transfer systems, land
treatment, or material extraction
activities beyond what is currently
required in the rule. For process vents
and equipment leaks, we identified
additional control options, and the
following sections summarize the
results of our technology review for
these emissions sources.
To perform the technology review, we
needed information that was not
included in the RTR emissions dataset
used for modeling site remediation
risks. Specifically, to evaluate the costs
and cost effectiveness of various control
options, we used a model plant
approach for development of estimates
for leaking components. This model
plant analysis is not comparable to the
model plant approach used in the risk
analysis. The model plant for the
technology review created the basis for
evaluating the options of revising the
LDAR standards. We model the number
of potential leaking components, the
leak rates applicable to such plants, and
the level of emissions from leaking
components under different standards.
The component count and leak rates are
the basis for evaluating the relative costs
and benefits of changes that were
considered for the LDAR program.
Therefore, the model plant approach we
used resulted in baseline emission
estimates different from those included
in the risk modeling dataset, which
included its own inventory of emissions
due to leaks. Additional information
about our technology review and model
plant approach can be found in the
memorandum titled CAA section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Site
Remediation Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action.
1. Process Vents
The current Site Remediation MACT
standards at 40 CFR 63.7890 require
emissions from process vents at existing
and new affected sources to be routed
through a closed vent system to a
control device achieving at least 95percent control. While some control
devices, such as carbon adsorption, are
assumed to have a control efficiency of
95-percent, other technologies are
capable of achieving greater emissions
control, such as thermal oxidizers.
Several of these devices have been
demonstrated to achieve a control
efficiency of 98-percent or greater.
Based on the combination of reported
control efficiencies for these devices
and known application to low
concentration organic vapor gas streams,
we investigated the use of a catalytic
thermal oxidizer with a control
efficiency of 98-percent as a potential
control option.
Table 5 presents the emission
reductions and costs of the 98-percent
control option considered for process
vents at existing affected sources in the
Site Remediation source category under
the technology review. Data collected
through our search of title V permits
indicate that only some facilities have
process vents, and based on these data,
we estimate that approximately six site
remediation facilities have process vents
that would require additional control to
reduce emissions by 98 percent. As site
remediations vary in the amount and
type of contamination that is being
abated, we used two example
remediations to estimate the amount of
HAP that could be removed through the
emissions controls. We estimated the
capital and annual costs of complying
with an increase from 95- to 98-percent
HAP control for process vents to be the
same for either example, with total
capital costs estimated at approximately
$400,000 and the total annualized costs
estimated to be approximately $185,000.
Based on the two example facilities, the
HAP emissions reduction beyond the
current control requirements could
range between 0.09 and 0.18 tpy for the
source category, and the cost
effectiveness could range from
approximately $31,000 to $66,000. The
incremental cost effectiveness in going
to 98-percent control from 95-percent
control could range from approximately
$1 million to $2 million per ton HAP
removed.
TABLE 5—SITE REMEDIATION PROCESS VENT OPTION EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS
Regulatory alternative
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
98-percent control ....................................
1
2
Based on our estimate of costs and
HAP reduction, we do not consider
increasing the emission reduction to 98percent to be reasonable, and we are not
proposing to revise the Site Remediation
MACT standards for process vents
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to
require this level of emissions control.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
HAP
emissions
reduction
(tpy)
Example
facility
Jkt 247001
Capital cost
($)
0.09
0.18
400,000
400,000
We solicit comment on our analysis and
conclusion regarding all aspects of this
control option (Comment C–3).
2. Equipment Leaks
The Site Remediation MACT
standards at 40 CFR 63.7920 currently
require compliance with either 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Annual cost
($/yr)
185,000
185,000
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton HAP removed)
65,000
30,000
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
($/ton HAP
removed)
2,145,000
1,000,000
part 63, subpart TT, or 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU, to control emissions from
equipment leaks at existing and new
affected sources. While many provisions
of these two standards are the same or
similar, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU,
requires the use of a more stringent leak
definition for valves in gas and vapor
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
service and in light liquid service,
pumps in light liquid service, and
connectors. Specifically, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU, lowers the leak definition
for valves from 10,000 ppm (in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT) to 500 ppm, lowers
the leak definition for pump seals from
10,000 ppm (in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TT) to 1,000 ppm, and requires periodic
instrument monitoring of connectors
with a leak definition of 500 ppm, as
opposed to instrument monitoring only
being required if a potential leak is
detected by visual, audible, olfactory, or
other detection method (in 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT). We identified the more
stringent leak definitions of 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU as a development in
practices, processes, or control
technologies. The more stringent
definitions have, in the years since
original promulgation of the Site
Remediation NESHAP in 2003, become
widely adopted and are frequently
already required for sources in the Site
Remediation source category under the
other applicable NESHAP requirements
at these sources. Making the more
stringent level of leak detection more
uniform across a facility will also
enhance regulatory consistency, clarity,
and certainty and enhance compliance.
Assuming conservatively that each of
the site remediation facilities currently
complies with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TT and does not already comply with 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU, we analyzed
the costs and emission reductions of
two options: Option 1—requiring the
use of the leak detection thresholds of
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves
and pumps; Option 2—requiring the use
of the leak detection thresholds of 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and
pumps and, in addition, requiring
connector monitoring under 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU. The estimated costs and
emissions reductions associated with
46161
these two options for the site
remediation source category are shown
in Table 6. For Option 1 (40 CFR part
63, subpart UU valve and pump leak
detection thresholds), we estimated the
capital costs to be approximately
$26,000 and the total annualized costs
to be approximately $10,000. The
estimated HAP emissions reduction is
approximately 4.7 tpy, and the cost
effectiveness is approximately $2,000/
ton. For Option 2 (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU valve and pump leak
detection thresholds and connector
monitoring), we estimated the capital
costs to be approximately $95,000 and
the total annualized costs to be
approximately $188,000. The estimated
HAP emissions reduction is
approximately 9.7 tpy, and the cost
effectiveness is approximately $19,000/
ton. The incremental cost effectiveness
between Option 1 and Option 2 is
approximately $35,000.
TABLE 6—SITE REMEDIATION EQUIPMENT LEAK OPTIONS EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS
HAP
emissions
reduction
(tpy)
Regulatory alternatives
Option 1: 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU valve and pump
leak thresholds only .........................................................
Option 2: 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU valve and pump
leak detection thresholds and connector monitoring .......
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Based on our analysis, the costs of
Option 1 are reasonable, given the level
of HAP emissions reduction that would
be achieved with this control option.
We do not believe the costs of Option
2 are reasonable, given the level of HAP
emissions reduction it would achieve
relative to a much higher incremental
cost per ton above Option 1. Therefore,
we are proposing to revise the Site
Remediation MACT standards in
accordance with Option 1 for equipment
leaks. We solicit comment on our
assessment and conclusions regarding
all aspects of both options (Comment
C–4).
F. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions
described above, we are proposing
additional revisions to the NESHAP,
and requesting information on two
issues for which the EPA has been
petitioned for reconsideration. We are
proposing revisions to the SSM
provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which
vacated two provisions that exempted
sources from the requirement to comply
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
Capital cost
($)
Fmt 4701
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
($/ton HAP
removed)
26,000
10,000
2,000
........................
9.7
95,000
188,000
19,000
35,000
1. Standards for Inorganic HAP and
Metal Emissions
In the May 13, 2016, proposal on
reconsideration, the EPA stated that it
would consider the issue of regulating
metals and inorganic HAP emissions
during the risk review. 81 FR 29824.
The EPA is proposing to not set
standards for metals and inorganic HAP
from site remediation sources subject to
the Site Remediation NESHAP because
we do not have data indicating that
remediation sources subject to the rule
emit these pollutants. In the EPA’s
development of the risk modeling
emissions data, we found six facilities
with emissions data in the NEI that were
labeled under the SCC as being from a
site remediation. None of these facilities
Frm 00025
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton HAP
removed)
4.7
with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. We also are proposing
various other changes to require
electronic reporting of emissions test
results and to make several minor
technical corrections to the regulation
text of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG.
Our analyses and proposed changes
related to these issues are discussed
below.
PO 00000
Annual cost
($/yr)
Sfmt 4702
reported inorganic HAP emissions or
metal emissions. The EPA is, therefore,
proposing no action at this time to set
standards for inorganic HAP and metals
in the absence of data indicating such
emissions occur at affected facilities.
The EPA is requesting data
demonstrating whether or not any
affected site remediation sources emit
inorganic HAP or metals (Comment
C–5).
2. SSM
a. Background
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
Court vacated portions of two
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section
112 regulations governing the emissions
of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA,
emissions standards or limitations must
be continuous in nature and that the
SSM exemption violates the CAA’s
requirement that a section 112 standard
apply at all times.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46162
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
We are proposing to eliminate the
SSM exemption in the Site Remediation
NESHAP. Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. We are also
proposing several revisions to Table 3
(the General Provisions Applicability
Table) as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the
General Provisions’ requirement that the
source develop an SSM plan. We also
are proposing to eliminate and revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM
exemption as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to eliminate
provisions that are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption in this
proposal. We are specifically seeking
comment on whether we have
successfully done so (Comment C–6).
In proposing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for
the reasons explained below, has not
proposed alternate standards for those
periods.
Based on the types of site remediation
processes and equipment for this source
category, the EPA has assumed that
emissions during periods of startup and
shutdown are the same as or lower than
during normal operations. As it is
possible to stop processing remediation
material until any control devices are
fully operating and able to effectively
control emissions, the EPA has
determined that separate standards for
periods of startup and shutdown are not
necessary and are not being proposed.
We solicit comment on this conclusion
regarding periods of startup and
shutdown at site remediation facilities
(Comment C–7).
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
However, by contrast, malfunction is
defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and
not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a
process to operate in a normal or usual
manner. . .’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA
has determined that CAA section 112
does not require that emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction be
factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards. Under CAA
section 112, emissions standards for
new sources must be no less stringent
than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission
limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
category. There is nothing in CAA
section 112 that directs the EPA to
consider malfunctions in determining
the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
performing sources when setting
emission standards. As the Court has
recognized, the phrase ‘‘average
emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of sources’’
says nothing about how the performance
of the best units is to be calculated. Nat’l
Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA,
734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
While the EPA accounts for variability
in setting emissions standards, nothing
in CAA section 112 requires the EPA to
consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. A malfunction should not be
treated in the same manner as the type
of variation in performance that occurs
during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to
perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’
and no statutory language compels the
EPA to consider such events in setting
standards based on ‘‘best performers.’’
Further, accounting for malfunctions
in setting emissions standards would be
difficult, if not impossible, given the
myriad different types of malfunctions
that can occur across all sources in the
category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting
for the frequency, degree, and duration
of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units
that are malfunctioning is not
‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g.,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘EPA typically has
wide latitude in determining the extent
of data-gathering necessary to solve a
problem. We generally defer to an
agency’s decision to proceed on the
basis of imperfect scientific information,
rather than to ‘‘invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.’’ ’’) (internal
quotation omitted). See also
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of
things, no general limit, individual
permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a
certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by
‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’
such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of
other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for
specification in advance by
regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a
‘‘best controlled or best performing
source’’ is to operate in such a way as
to avoid malfunctions of the source and
accounting for malfunctions could lead
to standards that are significantly less
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stringent than levels that are achieved
by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. It is reasonable
to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid
such a result. The EPA’s approach to
malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112 and is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
112(d) standards as a result of a
malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response
based on, among other things, the good
faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods,
including preventative and corrective
actions, as well as root cause analyses
to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. The EPA would also
consider whether the source’s failure to
comply with the CAA section 112(d)
standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’
and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by
poor maintenance or careless
operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction). Further, to the extent the
EPA files an enforcement action against
a source for violation of an emission
standard, the source can raise any and
all defenses in that enforcement action,
and the federal district court will
determine what, if any, relief is
appropriate. The same is true for citizen
enforcement actions. Similarly, the
presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense
raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In several prior rules, the EPA had
included an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for violations caused by
malfunctions in an effort to create a
system that incorporates some
flexibility, recognizing that there is a
tension, inherent in many types of air
regulations, to ensure adequate
compliance, while simultaneously
recognizing that despite the most
diligent of efforts, emission standards
may be violated under circumstances
entirely beyond the control of the
source. Although the EPA recognized
that its case-by-case enforcement
discretion provides sufficient flexibility
in these circumstances, it included the
affirmative defense to provide a more
formalized approach and more
regulatory clarity. Compare
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d
1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding
that an informal case-by-case
enforcement discretion approach is
adequate) with Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA,
564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977)
(requiring a more formalized approach
to consideration of ‘‘upsets beyond the
control of the permit holder.’’). Under
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the EPA’s regulatory affirmative defense
provisions, if a source could
demonstrate in a judicial or
administrative proceeding that it had
met the requirements of the affirmative
defense in the regulation, civil penalties
would not be assessed. In 2014, the
Court vacated such an affirmative
defense in one of the EPA’s CAA section
112(d) regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749
F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacating
affirmative defense provisions in a CAA
section 112(d) rule establishing
emission standards for Portland cement
kilns). The Court found that the EPA
lacked authority to establish an
affirmative defense for private civil suits
and held that under the CAA, the
authority to determine civil penalty
amounts lies exclusively with the
courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the
Court found, ‘‘As the language of the
statute makes clear, the courts
determine, on a case-by-case basis,
whether civil penalties are
‘appropriate.’ ’’ 749 F.3d at 1063; see
also Id. (‘‘[U]nder this statute, deciding
whether penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a
given private civil suit is a job for the
courts, not EPA.’’). In light of NRDC, the
EPA is not including a regulatory
affirmative defense provision in this
proposed rule. As explained above, if a
source is unable to comply with
emissions standards as a result of a
malfunction, the EPA may use its caseby-case enforcement discretion to
provide flexibility, as appropriate.
Further, as the Court recognized, in an
EPA or citizen enforcement action, the
court has the discretion to consider any
defense raised and determine whether
penalties are appropriate. See Id. at
1064 (noting arguments that violation
were caused by unavoidable technology
failure can be made to the courts in
future civil cases when the issue arises).
The same logic applies to EPA
administrative enforcement actions.
b. Specific SSM-Related Proposed
Changes
To address the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA’s
CAA section 112 regulations governing
the emissions of HAP during periods of
SSM, we are proposing revisions and
additions to certain provisions of the
Site Remediation NESHAP. As
described in detail below, we are
proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 3 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG) in
several of the references related to
requirements that apply during periods
of SSM. We are also proposing revisions
related to the following provisions of
the Site Remediation NESHAP: (1) The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
general duty to minimize emissions at
all times; (2) the requirement for sources
to comply with the emission limits in
the rule at all times; (3) performance
testing conditions requirements; (4)
excused monitoring excursions
provisions; and (5) malfunction
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
(1.) General Duty
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by adding rows
specifically for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i),
63.6(e)(1)(ii), and 63.6(e)(1)(iii), and to
include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability
column for the 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
entry. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the
general duty to minimize emissions.
Some of the language in that section is
no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to
add general duty regulatory text at 40
CFR 63.7935(b) that reflects the general
duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods
covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty
entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption,
there is no need to differentiate between
normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events in
describing the general duty. Therefore,
the language the EPA is proposing for 40
CFR 63.7935(b) does not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to include a
‘‘no’’ in the applicability column for the
newly added entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii)
imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant with
the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.7935(b).
The provisions of 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(iii) still apply, and we are
keeping the ‘‘yes’’ in the applicability
column for that section. For 40 CFR
63.6(e)(2), we are proposing to include
a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column for
that section because it is a reserved
section in the General Provisions.
(2.) SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ to ‘‘no’’ in the applicability
column. Generally, this paragraph
requires development of an SSM plan
and specifies SSM recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the
SSM plan. As previously noted, the EPA
is proposing to remove the SSM
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46163
exemptions. Therefore, affected units
will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of
a standard during such events will
ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
(3.) Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in the applicability column to a
‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
Sierra Club vacated the exemptions
contained in this provision and held
that the CAA requires that some CAA
section 112 standard apply at all times.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this
rule to apply at all times.
(4.) Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3) entry
for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in the applicability column to a
‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes
performance testing requirements. The
EPA is instead proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40
CFR 63.7941(b)(2). The performance
testing requirements we are proposing
to add differ from the General
Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the
language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption. However,
consistent with 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this
subpart should be based on
representative performance (i.e.,
performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source. The
EPA is proposing to add language that
requires the owner or operator to record
the process information that is
necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator
make available to the Administrator
such records ‘‘as may be necessary to
determine the condition of the
performance test’’ upon request but does
not specifically require the information
to be recorded. The regulatory text the
EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement
and makes explicit the requirement to
record and report the information.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46164
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(5.) Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3)
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii)
by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the
applicability column to a ‘‘no.’’ The
cross-references to the general duty and
SSM plan requirements in those
subparagraphs are not necessary in light
of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8
that require good air pollution control
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set
out the requirements of a quality control
program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
(6.) Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3) entry
for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv) by adding
separate entries for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii) and
63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) and changing the
‘‘yes’’ in the applicability column to a
‘‘no’’ for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) and
63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v). Section 63.10(b)(2)(i)
describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and
shutdown. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA
is proposing that recordkeeping and
reporting applicable to normal
operations will apply to startup and
shutdown. In the absence of special
provisions applicable to startup and
shutdown, such as a startup and
shutdown plan, there is no reason to
retain additional recordkeeping for
startup and shutdown periods. Section
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a
malfunction. The EPA is proposing to
add such requirements to 40 CFR
63.7952(a)(2). The regulatory text we are
proposing to add differs from the
General Provisions it is replacing in that
the General Provisions require the
creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The
EPA is proposing that this requirement
apply to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that
the source record the date, time, and
duration of the failure rather than the
‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also
proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.7952(a)(2) a requirement that sources
keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and
actions taken to minimize emissions, an
estimate of the volume of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the standard for
which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
include mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or
engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure
that there is adequate information to
allow the EPA to determine the severity
of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable
standard. Section 63.10(b)(2)(iv)
requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate
because SSM plans will no longer be
required. The requirement previously
applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to
minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by
reference to 40 CFR 63.7952(a)(2).
Section 63.10(b)(2)(v) requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM
events to show that actions taken were
consistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate
because SSM plans will no longer be
required.
(7.) Reporting
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 3) entry
for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in the applicability column to
‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes
the reporting requirements for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions. To
replace the General Provisions reporting
requirements, the EPA is proposing to
add electronic reporting requirements to
40 CFR 63.7951(c). The replacement
language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing
language that requires sources that fail
to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information
concerning such events in the semiannual summary report already required
under this rule. We are proposing that
the report must contain the number,
date, time, duration, and the cause of
such events (including unknown cause,
if applicable), a list of the affected
source or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would
include mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or
engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to
determine compliance, to allow the EPA
to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to
provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions during a failure to
meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or
operators to determine whether actions
taken to correct a malfunction are
consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required. The
proposed amendments, therefore,
eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the
description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal
schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary
because the events will be reported in
otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an
immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a
source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM
plan. We will no longer require owners
and operators to report when actions
taken during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no
longer be required.
3. Electronic Reporting
Through this proposal, the EPA is
proposing that owners and operators of
site remediation facilities submit
electronic copies of required
performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, and semi-annual
compliance reports through the EPA’s
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data
submission process is provided in the
memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2018–0833. The proposed
rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that
are supported by the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
ERT website 25 at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated
through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be
submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of
25 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit pollutants
that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the
ERT and other performance evaluation
results be submitted in PDF using the
attachment module of the ERT.
For semi-annual summary compliance
reports, the proposed rule requires that
owners and operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. A draft
version of the proposed template for this
report is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.26 The EPA specifically
requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the
template.
Additionally, the EPA has identified
two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be
provided. In both circumstances, the
decision to accept the claim of needing
additional time to report is within the
discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as
possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners
and operators from noncompliance in
cases where they cannot successfully
submit a report by the reporting
deadline for reasons outside of their
control. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to
outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI
which precludes an owner or operator
from accessing the system and
submitting required reports is addressed
in 40 CFR 63.7951(e). The situation
where an extension may be warranted
due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has
been caused by circumstances beyond
the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by
the affected facility that prevents an
owner or operator from complying with
the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is
addressed in 40 CFR63.7951(e).
Examples of such events are acts of
nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards
beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this proposed rulemaking
will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping
with current trends in data availability
and transparency, will further assist in
the protection of public health and the
environment, will improve compliance
26 See 40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_GGGGG_Site_
Remediation_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm,
available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0833.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
by facilitating the ability of regulated
facilities to demonstrate compliance
with requirements, and by facilitating
the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and
the EPA to assess and determine
compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated
air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic
reporting also eliminates paper-based,
manual processes, thereby saving time
and resources, simplifying data entry,
eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected
facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the
public. Moreover, electronic reporting is
consistent with the EPA’s plan 27 to
implement Executive Order 13563 and
is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 28 developed in response to
the White House’s Digital Government
Strategy.29 For more information on the
benefits of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2018–0833.
4. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
The Site Remediation NESHAP in 40
CFR 63.7920(b) requires an owner or
operator to control emissions from
equipment leaks according to the
requirements of either 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU. For open-ended valves and lines,
both subpart TT in 40 CFR 63.1014(b)(1)
and subpart UU in 40 CFR 63.1033(b)(1)
require that the open end be equipped
with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second
valve that shall ‘‘seal the open end.’’
However, ‘‘seal’’ is not defined in either
subpart, leading to uncertainty for the
owner or operator as to whether
compliance is being achieved.
Inspections under the EPA’s Air Toxics
LDAR initiative have provided evidence
that while certain open-ended lines may
be equipped with a cap, blind flange,
plug, or second valve, these are not
providing a ‘‘seal’’ as the EPA interprets
27 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective
Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154.
28 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA
Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/
documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf.
29 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century
Platform to Better Serve the American People, May
2012. Available at: https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46165
the term.30 In response to this
uncertainty, we are proposing to amend
40 CFR 63.7920(b) to clarify what ‘‘seal
the open end’’ means for open-ended
valves and lines. This proposed
clarification explains that for the
purpose of complying with the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.1014(b)(1)
(subpart TT), and 40 CFR 63.1033(b)(1)
(subpart UU), open-ended valves and
lines are ‘‘sealed’’ by the cap, blind
flange, plug, or second valve if
instrument monitoring of the openended valve or line conducted
according to EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A indicates no
readings of 500 ppm or greater.
In addition, 40 CFR 63.1014(c) of
subpart TT and 40 CFR 63.1033(c) of
subpart UU exempt open-ended valves
and lines that are in an emergency
shutdown system, and which are
designed to open automatically, from
the requirements to be equipped with a
cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve
that seals the open end. We are
proposing that these open-ended valves
and lines follow the requirements of 40
CFR 63.7920(b)(3)(ii) for bypass devices
that could be used to divert a vent
stream from the closed-vent system to
the atmosphere, which would require
that each such open-ended line be
equipped with either a flow indicator or
a seal or locking device. We are also
proposing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.7951(g)(3)
and 40 CFR 63.7952(a)(2)(v)(B) for these
open-ended values and lines.
We solicit comments on our proposed
approach to reducing the compliance
uncertainty associated with ‘‘sealed’’
open-ended valves and lines and our
proposed requirements for open-ended
valves and lines that are in an
emergency shutdown system and are
designed to open automatically
(Comment C–8).
5. Technical Corrections
In this rulemaking, we are proposing
four technical corrections to improve
the clarity of the Site Remediation
NESHAP requirements.
First, the original Site Remediation
NESHAP, promulgated in October 2003
(68 FR 58172), incorporated two
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) by
reference, as specified in 40 CFR 63.14.
However, while the paragraphs in 40
CFR 63.14 for these three VCS include
references to the NESHAP for which
they are approved to be used, these
references omit citations to 40 CFR 63,
subpart GGGGG. In 40 CFR 63.14, we
30 See Region V OEL Data for VV Rulemaking,
available in the docket for this action, available at
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46166
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
are adding citations to 40 CFR 63.7944
for the two following consensus
standards: American Petroleum Institute
(API) Publication 2517, Evaporative
Loss From External Floating-Roof
Tanks, and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method
D2879–83.
Second, we are correcting a citation
reference to 40 CFR 63.7(3) in 40 CFR
63.7942. The correct citation is to 40
CFR 63.7(a)(3).
Third, we are correcting a citation
reference to 40 CFR 63.7890(a)(1)(i) in
40 CFR 63.7941. The correct citation is
to 40 CFR 63.7890(b).
Fourth, we are correcting several
citation references to 40 CFR 63.7990 in
40 CFR 63.7901(a), 40 CFR
63.7901(b)(1), and 40 CFR 63.7903(a)
and (b). The correct citations are to 40
CFR 63.7900.
G. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
Under CAA section 112(d), the
proposed compliance date for new and
existing affected sources for the revised
SSM requirements, electronic reporting
requirements, the operating and
pressure release management
requirements for PRDs, and the revised
requirements regarding bypasses and
closure devices on pressure tanks is the
effective date of the final amendments.
We are proposing this compliance date
because available information indicates
these new and revised requirements
should be immediately implementable
by the facilities.
We are proposing that for existing
affected sources subject to the Site
Remediation MACT standards, the
compliance date for the PRD pressure
release actuation event reporting
requirements is 1 year from the effective
date of the final amendments. This time
is needed regardless of whether an
owner or operator of a facility chooses
to comply with the PRD pressure release
actuation event reporting provisions by
installing PRD release indicator systems,
employing parameter monitoring,
routing releases to a control device, or
choosing another compliance option as
permitted under the proposed
provisions. This time period will allow
site remediation facility owners and
operators to research equipment and
vendors, and to purchase, install, test,
and properly operate any necessary
equipment by the compliance date. For
new affected sources, the proposed
compliance date for PRD pressure
release actuation event reporting
requirements is the effective date of the
final amendments.
Finally, we are proposing revised
requirements for equipment leaks under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA
generally understands the steps needed
for site remediation facilities to comply
with the proposed standards for
equipment leaks, and believes 1 year
represents a reasonable amount of time
it will take these facilities to take these
steps. Therefore, we are proposing that
a one-year compliance period from the
date of promulgation is necessary for the
revised equipment leak requirements to
allow existing affected sources that are
currently complying with 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT, adequate time to modify
their existing LDAR programs to comply
with the revised standards for pumps
and valves. For new affected sources,
the proposed compliance date for the
equipment leak standards is the
effective date of the final amendments.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that there are
approximately 63 major source site
remediation facilities. Based on
available permit information, 33
facilities are expected to be subject to a
limited set of the rule requirements
under 40 CFR 63.7881(c)(1) due to the
low annual quantity of HAP contained
in the remediation material excavated,
extracted, pumped, or otherwise
removed during the site remediations
conducted at the facilities. These
facilities are only required to prepare
and maintain written documentation to
support the determination that the total
annual quantity of the HAP contained in
the remediation material excavated,
extracted, pumped, or otherwise
removed at the facility is less than 1
megagram per year. They are not subject
to any other emissions limits, work
practices, monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements. While new
site remediations are likely to be
conducted in the future, we are
currently not aware of any specific new
site remediation facilities that are
expected to be constructed.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
For equipment leaks, we are
proposing to revise the equipment leak
thresholds for pumps and valves for
facilities complying with 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT. We estimate the HAP
emission reduction for this change to be
approximately 4.7 tpy. We do not
anticipate any HAP emission reduction
from our proposed clarification of the
rule provision ‘‘seal the open end’’ (in
the context of open-ended valves and
lines) or the requirement to
electronically report the results of
emissions testing. For the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
revisions to the MACT standards
regarding SSM, including monitoring of
PRDs in remediation material service,
we were not able to quantify the
possible emission reductions, so none
are included in our assessment of air
quality impacts.
Therefore, the estimated total HAP
emission reductions for the proposed
rule revisions for the Site Remediation
source category are estimated to be 4.7
tpy.
C. What are the cost impacts?
For equipment leaks, we are
proposing to revise the equipment leak
thresholds for pumps and valves for
facilities complying with 40 CFR part
63, subpart TT. We estimate the
nationwide capital costs to be $26,000
and the annual costs to be $10,000.
We do not anticipate any quantifiable
capital or annual costs for our proposed
requirements to electronically report the
results of emissions testing, or the
requirements to monitor PRDs. For
PRDs, we are also proposing to require
facilities to conduct analyses of the
causes of PRD pressure release actuation
events and to implement of corrective
measures. We estimate the nationwide
annualized costs for the analysis of
actuation events to be $13,000. This cost
represents the estimated labor hours we
anticipate would be required to
determine the cause of a typical
actuation event and to implement any
corrective measure suggested by the
analysis of the cause. We estimate an
increase in reporting and recordkeeping
associated with the proposed
requirements for equipment leaks and
PRDs of approximately $7,000 per year
nationwide. Therefore, the total capital
costs for the proposed standards for the
Site Remediation source category are
approximately $26,000, and the total
annualized costs are approximately
$30,000.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on
changes in market prices and output
levels. If changes in market prices and
output levels in the primary markets are
significant enough, impacts on other
markets may also be examined. Both the
magnitude of costs needed to comply
with a proposed rule and the
distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in
determining how the market will change
in response to a proposed rule. The total
capital costs associated with this
proposed rule are estimated to be
approximately $26,000, and the
estimated annualized cost is
approximately $30,000. We expect these
costs to be borne by 30 facilities, with
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
an estimated annualized cost of
approximately $1,000 per facility per
year. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on
to the purchaser or absorbed by the
firms.
E. What are the benefits?
We have estimated that this action
will achieve HAP emissions reductions
of 4.7 tpy. The proposed standards will
result in reductions in the actual and
MACT-allowable emissions of HAP and
may reduce the actual and potential
cancer risks and noncancer health
effects due to emissions of HAP from
this source category, as discussed in
section IV.B.2 of this preamble. We have
not quantified the monetary benefits
associated with these reductions;
however, these avoided emissions will
result in improvements in air quality
and reduced negative health effects
associated with exposure to air
pollution of these emissions.
VI. Request for Comment
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Request for Comment Regarding
CERCLA/RCRA Exempt Sources
1. Introduction
The EPA is using this RTR proposal
separately to solicit comment on ways
in which the Site Remediation NESHAP
could be amended with respect to
facilities currently exempt under 40
CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3), under a
scenario where the EPA removes the
exemption. The exemption applies to
facilities subject to federally-enforceable
oversight under the CERCLA or the
RCRA. In particular, in light of
comments received on our 2016
proposal to remove the exemption, the
Agency seeks additional comment
regarding subcategorization or other
methods of distinguishing among
appropriate requirements for such
sources, as well as whether the issues
raised by commenters may be applicable
more generally for all affected facilities
in this source category. The EPA is
seeking comment on how, if the
exemption was removed, these formerly
exempt sources would be able to
implement the Site Remediation
NESHAP effectively and efficiently
while meeting the requirements of
RCRA, CERCLA, and the CAA. We seek
comment on how this could be reflected
in the applicability, monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and
compliance demonstration
requirements. The EPA seeks comment
on how to efficiently implement the rule
for cleanups conducted under CERCLA
or RCRA authority. For example, this
could include look-up tables for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
commonly used remediation
alternatives and associated BACT and
LAER compliant technologies that
would minimize emissions to be
consistent with the rule. We are seeking
ideas on what tools or metrics could be
developed that would aid to streamline
the implementation of the regulation on
a site-specific basis.
It is not the EPA’s intention to take
final action with respect to the
exemption in this action, but to use this
opportunity to gather additional
information in anticipation of
addressing these issues through a
separate action (Comment C–9).
2. Background
Section 112(c)(1) of the CAA requires
EPA to publish and regularly update (at
least every 8 years) ‘‘a list of all
categories and subcategories of major
sources and area sources (listed under
paragraph (3)) of the air pollutants listed
pursuant to subsection (b).’’ In 1992, the
EPA included site remediation on the
initial CAA 112(c)(1) source category
list and defined the source category to
include the cleanup of sites that possess
contaminated media, including National
Priorities List sites and Corrective
Action sites. See the EPA, July 1992
Final Report. The listing assumed that
remediation cleanups conducted under
specific cleanup authorities could be
major sources. Section 112(c)(2) of the
CAA states that the EPA ‘‘shall establish
emissions standards under [section
112(d)]’’ for the categories and
subcategories the Administrator lists.
The D.C. Circuit has described this as a
mandatory obligation. See, e.g., NRDC v.
EPA, 489 F.3d. 1364, 1368 (2007).
3. Promulgation of Rule and Petition for
Reconsideration
In 2003, the EPA promulgated a final
rule under CAA section 112 which
established MACT standards for HAP
emissions at major sources where
remediation technologies and practices
are used to clean up contaminated
media (e.g., soils, groundwater, or
surface water) or certain stored or
disposed materials (68 FR 58172,
October 8, 2003). The rule exempted
from the MACT standard remediations
performed under federal oversight
pursuant to CERCLA or the RCRA
corrective action program, on the basis
that such regulated cleanups provided
the ‘‘functional equivalent’’ of the
MACT standards. Id. at 58176.
The EPA stated that CERCLA
Superfund and RCRA corrective action
programs provide an ‘‘appropriate and
effective regulatory approach’’ to
address air emissions, because these
statutes require consideration of the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46167
same HAP emissions and include a
public input process. Id. at 58183. EPA
noted the RCRA corrective action and
CERCLA Superfund assessment and
clean-up processes are already subject to
federal regulatory oversight; further,
remediation actions are designed and
managed based on site-specific
conditions; and, they include public
participation mechanisms. Id. Note that
the EPA did not extend the RCRA and
CERCLA exemption to sites handled
under state and voluntary cleanup
programs, brownfields cleanups, and
other types of site remediation that are
not subject to the oversight provided for
RCRA corrective action or CERCLA
Superfund actions, see Id. at 58183–84.
The EPA concluded that imposing the
NESHAP requirements on remediations
already overseen pursuant to CERCLA
or RCRA would have limited impact
and could add administrative burden to
the remediation process under those
programs for little or no environmental
benefit. Id.
The Sierra Club filed a petition for
judicial review of the rule in the Court
as well as an administrative petition for
reconsideration under the CAA on two
issues in the final rule, one of which
was the exemption for CERCLA and
RCRA sites. The other issue raised by
petitioners concerned control of heavy
metals and other inorganic HAP from
this source category. This issue is
addressed in section IV.E.1 of this
preamble. The petition for
reconsideration stated that the public
did not have an opportunity to comment
specifically on the EPA’s ‘‘functional
equivalent’’ argument because the EPA
raised it for the first time in the final
rule preamble. Petitioners further stated
that there is no CAA authority to
exempt these sources, and CAA section
112(c) and (d) require that the EPA
establish MACT standards for them.
Petitioners asserted that CERCLA and
RCRA applicable requirements are not
the functional equivalent of the MACT
standards for this source category, and
that the EPA had not demonstrated that
they are.
In January 2004, the Court granted a
joint motion to hold the case in
abeyance so the parties could discuss
possible settlement. Settlement
discussions were ultimately
unsuccessful. In October 2014, the Court
ordered the parties to show cause why
the case should not be administratively
terminated. The EPA and Sierra Club
filed a joint response stating that the
parties were exploring a new approach
to settlement. In March 2015, the EPA
granted reconsideration on the issues
raised in the petition via letter.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46168
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
In May 2016, the EPA proposed to
remove the exemption from the Site
Remediation MACT rule for CERCLA
Superfund and RCRA corrective action
sites (81 FR 29821 May 13, 2016). The
EPA has not taken final action on the
proposed rule, and the EPA now is
seeking further comment and
information relating to this issue.
4. 2016 Proposal on Reconsideration
On May 13, 2016, the EPA proposed
to amend the Site Remediation NESHAP
by removing exemptions from the rule
for site remediation activities performed
under federally-enforceable oversight
authority of CERCLA or RCRA. 81 FR
29821.The EPA also proposed removing
the applicability requirement that site
remediations be co-located with at least
one other stationary source regulated by
another NESHAP. The EPA has not
taken final action on that proposal and
is not proposing to do so in this notice.
However, in conjunction with this
proposal for the RTR, the EPA is seeking
additional comment and information
related to the EPA’s previous proposal
to remove the exemptions for
remediations under RCRA and CERCLA
programs. The EPA is not seeking
further comment on the proposal to
remove the applicability requirement
that site remediations be co-located with
at least one other stationary source
regulated by another NESHAP.
In response to our 2016 proposal, the
EPA received comments both in support
of and in opposition to our proposal to
remove the exemption provisions. The
EPA has reviewed the comments
received in response to our 2016
proposal and does not believe it has
sufficient information to proceed with a
final rule at this time. The comments
received in opposition to the proposal to
remove the exemptions suggested that
the proposal to remove the RCRA and
CERCLA exemptions alone, without
further consideration of modification of
other provisions, may apply the
NESHAP to sources that we did not
intend to regulate, or apply the NESHAP
in a way that compliance is impractical
given the nature of the remediation
effort facing the source.
These comments, briefly summarized
below (and available in the proposal
docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0021),
have led the EPA to determine that
additional information and comment are
appropriate before taking further action.
The EPA is not proposing any regulatory
action on removing the RCRA and
CERCLA exemptions in this RTR
proposal. Rather, the EPA is using this
proposal as an opportune time to solicit
further information and data in response
to the comments on our prior proposal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
The comments and information we
receive with respect to the exemptions
will be added to the information
available for a subsequent rulemaking
after the EPA has finalized the RTR.
5. Discussion and Request for Comment
The 2016 proposal to eliminate the
exemption included no other changes to
the rule, although the proposal would
have the effect of applying the rule to
approximately 125 facilities at which a
site remediation is conducted, an
inclusion that would, in turn, cover an
even greater number of operable units.
The EPA received comments from
facilities from across the spectrum of
exempt sources likely to be subject to
the rule after removing the exemptions.
This broad range of sources and their
diversity indicate that the EPA should
consider sub-categorization or other
methods of differentiating among
sources under the Site Remediation
NESHAP.
Under CAA section 112(c), the EPA
may establish subcategories based on
size, type, or class of affected source,
such that standards applicable to each
subcategory achieve reductions required
by the CAA, but in a manner
appropriate to that subgroup of sources.
In general, the EPA has established
subcategories based on the material
inputs or the nature of the products
being produced which in turn inform
the nature of the requirements that
apply. In other cases, the EPA created
subcategories for different process
equipment that required air pollution
control of fundamentally different
operating parameters and mechanisms,
and which, in turn, required monitoring
or testing of different types to
demonstrate compliance.
The EPA understands the comments
on the May 2016 proposal to indicate
that the EPA should consider
subcategorizing or differentiating among
remediations in some way. While the
Site Remediation NESHAP already
reflects certain differences in remedial
actions, in commenters’ view, there are
other considerations that warrant
further consideration of how the rule is
structured.
Commenters described the site
remediation in ways that suggested that
applying the Site Remediation NESHAP
is unlike applying other NESHAP. For
example, when a typical major source is
constructed, the owner-operator is fully
aware of the processes they will
perform, the equipment that will be
needed, and the techniques and
practices that will be employed to
comply with applicable standards. If a
source is not able to determine
applicability based on their own
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comparison of potentially applicable
standards and their industrial processes,
the facility can request an applicability
determination from the EPA.
In contrast, an entity that is initiating
a site remediation must contend with a
level of uncertainty and incomplete
information about the remediation that
eventually will occur. These differences
have a material impact on the way
sources determine applicability and
implement specific provisions of the
Site Remediation NESHAP. For
example, 40 CFR 63.7886(c)(1) has
provisions that require that a source
conduct a site investigation to
substantiate specific subsurface
quantities of pollutants to be
remediated, to determine whether a
given remediation will be subject to the
rule.
To make this determination, the
extent of contamination must be
estimated, but these quantities may not
be known until a future (and often
extended) period for a single operable
unit. This is further complicated when
a facility consists of many individual
operable units dispersed over hundreds
of acres. A facility with a series of
operable units that will be in
remediation in sequence is not required
to know the pollutant quantities at all
operable units at the outset of the first
remediation, unless the facility is
compelled to make an applicability
determination under the Site
Remediation NESHAP. When
remediating a series of operable units,
the remediation activity across units
may not be active at the same time or
may be intermittent or discontinued
after a couple of months or years. This
makes an applicability determination
for a potentially affected source a greater
hurdle than the EPA may have
considered.
The EPA recognizes that the diversity
of sites already subject to the NESHAP
is a characteristic of the Site
Remediation source category as a whole.
However, we understand commenters’
view to be that the size of the cleanup,
and the typically greater scale,
complexity, and diversity of
remediation issues at sites that fall
under the current RCRA and CERCLA
exemption render the considerations
discussed above particularly significant
in establishing appropriate NESHAP
requirements for such sites.
Another consideration highlighted by
commenters for these typically large and
complex remediation sites is that
remediation is driven by the
requirements of the RCRA and CERCLA
programs, not by compliance with a
NESHAP. For some affected sources,
according to commenters, compliance
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
with certain requirements of the rule
may have a negative impact on the
execution of remediation conducted in
compliance with RCRA and CERCLA.
For example, RCRA and CERCLA
cleanups may be ongoing at the time
that the remediation becomes subject to
the Site Remediation NESHAP. While
the EPA has some flexibility in the
applicability date of the NESHAP,
commenters pointed out that the EPA
provided no regulatory language to
guide a facility to show whether or how
the facility’s adherence to corrective
action requirements and approved
remediation plans under RCRA and
CERCLA demonstrate initial or
continuing compliance with the Site
Remediation NESHAP standards to
allow a remediation to proceed.
The EPA will take these comments
under advisement, to be acted upon at
a later date. The EPA will proceed with
the RTR notice and comment
rulemaking to complete this
requirement under CAA section 112 by
the deadline. Please see sections IV.B
and IV.D of this preamble, and technical
support documents supplied in the
docket, for how the EPA has evaluated
exempt sources with respect to both the
risk and technology reviews.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Request for Comment on All Aspects
of the Risk and Technology Review
We solicit comments on all aspects of
this proposed action. In addition to
general comments on this proposed
action, we are also interested in
additional data that may improve the
risk assessments and other analyses. We
are specifically interested in receiving
any improvements to the data used in
the site-specific emissions profiles used
for risk modeling. Such data should
include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow
characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or
information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on
submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles
used in the source category risk and
demographic analyses and instructions
are available for download on the RTR
website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files
include detailed information for each
HAP emissions release point for the
facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not
representative or are inaccurate, please
identify the data in question, provide
your reason for concern, and provide
any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
request that you provide documentation
of the basis for the revised values to
support your suggested changes. To
submit comments on the data
downloaded from the RTR website,
complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter
suggested revisions to the data fields
appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information
fields for each suggested revision (i.e.,
commenter name, commenter
organization, commenter email address,
commenter phone number, and revision
comments).
3. Gather documentation for any
suggested emissions revisions (e.g.,
performance test reports, material
balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file
with suggested revisions in Microsoft®
Access format and all accompanying
documentation to Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2018–0833 (through the
method described in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on
a single facility or multiple facilities,
you need only submit one file for all
facilities. The file should contain all
suggested changes for all sources at that
facility (or facilities). We request that all
data revision comments be submitted in
the form of updated Microsoft® Excel
files that are generated by the
Microsoft® Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46169
number 2062.07. You can find a copy of
the ICR in the docket for this rule, and
it is briefly summarized here.
The information requirements in this
rulemaking are based on the
notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission
standards. These notifications, reports,
and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are specifically
authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted
to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded
according to agency policies set forth in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Respondents/affected entities: Unlike
a specific industry sector or type of
business, the respondents potentially
affected by this ICR cannot be easily or
definitively identified. Potentially, the
Site Remediation rule may be applicable
to any type of business or facility at
which a site remediation is conducted
to clean up media contaminated with
organic HAP when the remediation
activities are performed, the authority
under which the remediation activities
are performed, and the magnitude of the
HAP in the remediation material meets
the applicability criteria specified in the
rule. A site remediation that is subject
to this rule potentially may be
conducted at any type of privatelyowned or government-owned facility at
which contamination has occurred due
to past events or current activities at the
facility. For site remediation performed
at sites where the facility has been
abandoned and there is no owner, a
government agency takes responsibility
for the cleanup.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
Estimated number of respondents: 30
total for the source category. These
facilities are already respondents and no
facilities are expected to become
respondents as a result of this proposed
action.
Frequency of response: Semiannual.
Total estimated burden: 19,700 total
hours (per year) for the source category,
of which 310 hours are estimated as a
result of this proposed action. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The total
estimated cost of the rule is $1.39
million (per year) for the source
category. This includes $126,000 total
annualized capital or operation and
maintenance costs. We estimate that
$36,000 of the $126,000 in total
annualized capital or operation and
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46170
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
maintenance costs is a result of this
proposed action. Recordkeeping and
reporting costs of approximately $7,000
estimated as a result of this action are
included in the $1.39 million in total
costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also
send your ICR-related comments to
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_
submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 3, 2019. The EPA will
respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The small entities
subject to the requirements of this
action are chemical and refining
companies. The Agency has determined
that two small entities, representing
approximately 7 percent of the total
number of entities subject to the
proposal, may experience an impact of
less than 0.1 percent of revenues.
Details of this analysis are presented in
the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833).
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
proposed rule imposes no enforceable
duty on any state, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector.
F. Executive Oder 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). There are no site remediation
facilities that are owned or operated by
tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. The EPA specifically solicits
comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. Because the proposed rule
amendments would result in reduced
emissions of HAP and reduced risk to
anyone exposed, the EPA believes that
the proposed rule amendments would
provide additional protection to
children. More information on the
source category’s risk can be found in
section IV of this preamble. The
complete risk analysis results and the
details concerning its development are
presented in the memorandum entitled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Site
Remediation Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0833).
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to HAP emitted by
site remediation facilities.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical
standards. The EPA is formalizing the
incorporation of two technical standards
that were included in the October 2003
rule for which the EPA had previously
not formally requested the Office of the
Federal Register to include in 40 CFR
63.14 with a reference back to the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sections in 40 CFR 63, subpart GGGGG.
These two standards were already
incorporated in 40 CFR 63.14 and were
formally requested for other rules. These
standards are API Publication 2517,
‘‘Evaporative Loss from External
Floating-Roof Tanks,’’ Third Edition,
February 1989, and ASTM D2879–83,
‘‘Standard Method for Vapor PressureTemperature Relationship and Initial
Decomposition Temperature of Liquids
by Isoteniscope.’’ The API Publication
2517 is used to determine the maximum
true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids
stored at ambient temperature and is
available to the public for free viewing
online in the Read Online Documents
section on API’s website at https://
publications.api.org. In addition to this
free online viewing availability on API’s
website, hard copies and printable
versions are available for purchase from
API. The ASTM D2879–83 method is
also used to determine the maximum
true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids
stored at ambient temperature, and it is
available to the public for free viewing
online in the Reading Room section on
ASTM’s website at https://
www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/.
Hardcopies and printable versions are
also available for purchase from ASTM.
Additional information can be found at
https://www.api.org/and https://
www.astm.org/Standard/standardsandpublications.html.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority, low income, or indigenous
populations.
To gain a better understanding of the
source category and near source
populations, the EPA conducted a
demographic analysis for site
remediation facilities to identify any
overrepresentation of minority, low
income, or indigenous populations with
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million. This
analysis only gives some indication of
the prevalence of sub-populations that
may be exposed to air pollution from
the sources; it does not identify the
demographic characteristics of the most
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
highly affected individuals or
communities, nor does it quantify the
level of risk faced by those individuals
or communities. More information on
the source category’s risk can be found
in section IV of this preamble. The
complete demographic analysis results
and the details concerning its
development are presented in the
memorandum titled Risk and
Technology Review—Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Site Remediation Source
Category Operations, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833).
For the Site Remediation source
category, the demographic analysis
revealed that for some demographic
categories, the percentage of people
with cancer risks greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million is above their
corresponding national averages of the
amount of people in that demographic
category. These demographic categories
are ‘‘African American,’’ ‘‘Above
Poverty Level,’’ and ‘‘Over 25 and With
a High School Diploma.’’ The ratio of
African Americans with a cancer risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
due to site remediation is 17 percent
higher than the national average
percentage of people in that
demographic category (14 percent
versus 12 percent); the ratio of people
living above the poverty line with a
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in1 million due to site remediation is 1
percent higher than the national average
percentage of people in that
demographic category (87 percent
versus 86 percent); and the ratio of
people over age 25 with a high school
diploma with a cancer risk greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million due to site
remediation is 3 percent higher than the
national average percentage of people in
that demographic category (89 percent
versus 86 percent). However, as noted
previously, risks from this source
category were found to be acceptable for
all populations.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 63 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part
63continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 63.14 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (h)(31) to
read as follows:
■
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative
Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks,
Third Edition, February 1989, IBR
approved for §§ 63.111, 63.1402,
63.2406 and 63.7944.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(31) ASTM D2879–83, Standard
Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope,
IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.1402,
63.2406, 63.7944, and 63.12005.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart GGGGG—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Site Remediation
3. Section 63.7883 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory
text, (c) introductory text, and (d)
introductory text, and adding paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.7883 When do I have to comply with
this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected
source, you must comply with each
emission limitation, work practice
standard, and operation and
maintenance requirement in this
subpart that applies to you no later than
October 9, 2006, except as provided in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) If you have a new affected source
that manages remediation material other
than a radioactive mixed waste as
defined in § 63.7957, then you must
meet the compliance date specified in
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as
applicable to your affected source,
except as provided in paragraph (f) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you have a new affected source
that manages remediation material that
is a radioactive mixed waste as defined
in § 63.7957, then you must meet the
compliance date specified in paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable
to your affected source, except as
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46171
(d) If your facility is an area source
that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP as defined in
§ 63.2, then you must meet the
compliance dates specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (f) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Sources must comply with the
equipment leak requirements of
§ 63.7920(b)(3) and (4) and the pressure
relief device requirements of
§ 63.7920(d) and (e) as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If the affected source’s initial
startup date is before [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must
comply with the equipment leak
requirements of § 63.7920(b)(3) and (4)
and the pressure relief device
requirements of § 63.7920(d) and (e) of
this subpart on or before [DATE ONE
YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
(2) If the affected source’s initial
startup date is on or after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must
comply with the equipment leak
requirements of § 63.7920(b)(3) and (4)
and the pressure relief device
requirements of § 63.7920(d) and (e) of
this subpart upon initial startup.
■ 4. Section 63.7895 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 63.7895 What emissions limitations and
work practice standards must I meet for
tanks?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you use Tank Level 1 controls,
you must install and operate a fixed roof
according to the requirements in
§ 63.902, with the exceptions specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section. As an alternative to using this
fixed roof, you may choose to use one
of Tank Level 2 controls in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(1) Where § 63.902(c)(2) provides an
exception for a spring-loaded pressurevacuum relief valve, conservation vent,
or similar type of pressure relief device
which vents to the atmosphere, only a
conservation vent is eligible for the
exception for the purposes of this
subpart.
(2) The provisions of § 63.902(c)(3) do
not apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 63.7896 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) and
(f)(1) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46172
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
§ 63.7896 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions limitations
and work practice standards for tanks?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Each tank using Tank Level 1
controls is equipped with a fixed roof
and closure devices according to the
requirements in § 63.902(b) and (c), with
the exceptions specified in
§ 63.7895(c)(1) and (2), and you have
records documenting the design.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) You will operate the fixed roof and
closure devices according to the
requirements in § 63.902, with the
exceptions specified in § 63.7895(c)(1)
and (2).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) Each tank is equipped with a fixed
roof and closure devices according to
the requirements in § 63.685(g), with the
exceptions specified in § 63.7895(c)(1)
and (2), and you have records
documenting the design.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 63.7898 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7898 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards for
tanks?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the
fixed roof and closure devices according
to the requirements in § 63.902(c), with
the exceptions specified in
§ 63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 63.7900 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
introductory text, (c), and (d) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7900 What emissions limitations and
work practice standards must I meet for
containers?
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) If the design capacity of your
container is less than or equal to 0.46
m3, then you must use controls
according to the standards for Container
Level 1 controls as specified in § 63.922,
except that § 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
As an alternative, you may choose to
use controls according to either of the
standards for Container Level 2 controls
as specified in § 63.923.
(2) If the design capacity of your
container is greater than 0.46 m3, then
you must use controls according to the
standards for Container Level 2 controls
as specified in § 63.923, except that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
§ 63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for
the purposes of this subpart and except
as provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section.
(3) As an alternative to meeting the
standards in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section for containers with a capacity
greater than 0.46 m3, if you determine
that either of the conditions in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) or (ii) apply to the
remediation material placed in your
container, then you may use controls
according to the standards for Container
Level 1 controls as specified in § 63.922,
except that § 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) At times when a container having
a design capacity greater than 0.1 m3 is
used for treatment of a remediation
material by a waste stabilization process
as defined in § 63.7957, you must
control air emissions from the container
during the process whenever the
remediation material in the container is
exposed to the atmosphere according to
the standards for Container Level 3
controls as specified in § 63.924, except
that § 63.924(d) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet
the emissions limitations and work
practice standards in § 63.7925 that
apply to your closed vent system and
control device.
(d) As an alternative to meeting the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section, you may choose to use controls
on your container according to the
standards for Container Level 3 controls
as specified in § 63.924, except that
§ 63.924(d) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet
the emissions limitations and work
practice standards in § 63.7925 that
apply to your closed vent system and
control device.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 63.7901 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (c)(2), and
(d)(3) to read as follows:
§ 63.7901 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions limitations
and work practice standards for
containers?
(a) You must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards
in § 63.7900 that apply to your affected
containers by meeting the requirements
in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section, as applicable to your
containers.
(b) * * *
(1) You have determined the
applicable container control levels
specified in § 63.7900 for the containers
to be used for your site remediation.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate each container
cover and closure device according to
the requirements in § 63.922(d), except
that § 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
(d) * * *
(3) You will operate and maintain the
container covers and closure devices
according to the requirements in
§ 63.923(d), except that § 63.923(d)(4)
and (5) do not apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 63.7903 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory
text, (c)(1), and (d)(2) to read as follows:
§ 63.7903 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards for
containers?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards
in § 63.7900 applicable to your affected
containers by meeting the requirements
in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section.
(b) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the requirement to
determine the applicable container
control level specified in § 63.7900(b)
for each affected tank by meeting the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining covers
for each container according to the
requirements in § 63.922(d), except that
§ 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Operating and maintaining
container covers according to the
requirements in § 63.923(d), except that
§ 63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 63.7905 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:
§ 63.7905 What emissions limitations or
work practice standards must I meet for
surface impoundments?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Install and operate a floating
membrane cover according to the
requirements in § 63.942, except that
§ 63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply for
the purposes of this subpart; or
(2) Install and operate a cover vented
through a closed vent system to a
control device according to the
requirements in § 63.943, except that
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
§ 63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet
the emissions limitations and work
practice standards in § 63.7925 that
apply to your closed vent system and
control device.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Section 63.7906 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 63.7906 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions limitations
or work practice standards for surface
impoundments?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) You will operate the cover and
closure devices according to the
requirements in § 63.942(c), except that
§ 63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate the cover and
closure devices according to the
requirements in § 63.943(c), except that
§ 63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Section 63.7908 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) to
read as follows:
§ 63.7908 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards for
surface impoundments?
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the
floating membrane cover and closure
devices according to the requirements in
§ 63.942(c), except that § 63.942(c)(2)
and (3) do not apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the
cover and its closure devices according
to the requirements in § 63.943(c),
except that § 63.943(c)(2) does not apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Section 63.7910 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) to
read as follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
§ 63.7910 What emissions limitations and
work practice standards must I meet for
separators?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Install and operate a floating roof
according to the requirements in
§ 63.1043, except that § 63.1043(c)(2)
does not apply for the purposes of this
subpart. For portions of the separator
where it is infeasible to install and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
operate a floating roof, such as over a
weir mechanism, you must comply with
the requirements specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) Install and operate a fixed roof
vented through a closed vent system to
a control device according to the
requirements in § 63.1044, except that
§ 63.1044(c)(2) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet
the emissions limitations and work
practice standards in § 63.7925 that
apply to your closed vent system and
control device.
(3) Install and operate a pressurized
separator according to the requirements
in § 63.1045 except that
§ 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 63.7911 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), and
(d)(2) to read as follows:
§ 63.7911 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions limitations
and work practice standards for
separators?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) You will operate the floating roof
and closure devices according to the
requirements in § 63.1043(c), except that
§ 63.1043(c)(2) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate the fixed roof and
its closure devices according to the
requirements in § 63.1042(c), except that
§ 63.1042(c)(2) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) You will operate the pressurized
separator as a closed system according
to the requirements in § 63.1045(b)(3),
except that § 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
■ 15. Section 63.7912 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 63.7912 What are my inspection and
monitoring requirements for separators?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you use a pressurized separator
that operates as a closed system
according to § 63.7910(b)(3), you must
visually inspect each pressurized
separator and closure devices for defects
at least annually to ensure they are
operating according to the design
requirements in § 63.1045(b), except
that § 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
■ 16. Section 63.7913 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) to
read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46173
§ 63.7913 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards for
separators?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the
fixed roof and its closure devices
according to the requirements in
§ 63.1042, except that § 63.1042(c)(2)
does not apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Operating the pressurized
separator at all times according to the
requirements in § 63.1045, except that
§ 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Revise the undesignated center
heading for §§ 63.7920 through 63.7922
to read as follows:
Equipment Leaks and Pressure Relief
Devices
18. Section 63.7920 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4);
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) as
paragraph (f); and
■ d. Adding new paragraph (d) and
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
■
■
■
§ 63.7920 What emissions limitations and
work practice standards must I meet for
equipment leaks?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Control equipment leaks according
to all applicable requirements under 40
CFR part 63, subpart TT—National
Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks—Control Level 1, with the
differences noted in paragraphs (b)(3)
and (4) of this section for the purposes
of this subpart; or
(2) Control equipment leaks according
to all applicable requirements under 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU—National
Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks—Control Level 2, with the
differences noted in paragraphs (b)(3) of
this section for the purposes of this
subpart
(3)(i) For the purpose of complying
with the requirements of § 63.1014(b)(1)
or § 63.1033(b)(1), the open end is
sealed when instrument monitoring of
the open-ended valve or line conducted
according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A indicates no readings of
500 ppm or greater.
(ii) For the purpose of complying with
the requirements of § 63.1014(c) or
§ 63.1033(c), open-ended valves or lines
in an emergency shutdown system
which are designed to open
automatically in the event of a process
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46174
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
upset and that are exempt from the
requirements in § 63.1014(b) or
§ 63.1033(b) must comply with the
requirements in § 63.693(c)(2).
(4)(i) For the purpose of complying
with the requirements of § 63.1006(b)(2),
the instrument reading that defines a
leak is 500 parts per million or greater.
(ii) For the purpose of complying with
the requirements of § 63.1007(b)(2), the
instrument reading that defines a leak is
5,000 parts per million or greater for
pumps handling polymerizing
monomers; 2,000 parts per million or
greater for pumps in food/medical
service; and 1,000 parts per million or
greater for all other pumps.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For the purposes of this subpart,
the requirements of § 63.7920(e) of this
subpart apply rather than those of
§ 63.1030 or of § 63.1011, as applicable,
for pressure relief devices in gas and
vapor service. The requirements of
§ 63.7920(e) of this subpart apply rather
than those of § 63.1029 or of § 63.1010,
as applicable, for pressure relief devices
in liquid service.
(e) Operate each pressure relief device
under normal operating conditions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above the
background level as detected by the
method specified in § 63.1004(b) or
§ 63.1023(b), as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 19. Section 63.7923 is added before
the center heading ‘‘Closed Vent
Systems and Control Devices’’ to read as
follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.7923 What emissions limitations must
I meet for pressure relief devices?
(a) For each pressure relief device in
remediation material service, you must
comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or
(2) of this section following a pressure
release actuation event, as applicable.
(1) If the pressure relief device does
not consist of or include a rupture disk,
return the pressure relief device to the
normal operating conditions specified
in § 63.7920(e) as soon as practicable
and conduct instrument monitoring by
the method specified in § 63.1004(b) or
§ 63.1023(b), as applicable, no later than
5 calendar days after the pressure
release device returns to remediation
material service following a pressure
release actuation event, except as
provided in § 63.1024(d) or of
§ 63.1005(c), as applicable.
(2) If the pressure relief device
consists of or includes a rupture disk,
except as provided in § 63.1024(d) or of
§ 63.1005(c), as applicable, install a
replacement disk as soon as practicable
but no later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release actuation event.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
(b) You must equip each pressure
relief device in remediation material
service with a device(s) or use a
monitoring system sufficient to indicate
a pressure release to the atmosphere.
The device or monitoring system may be
either specific to the pressure release
device itself or may be associated with
the process system or piping. Examples
of these types of devices or monitoring
systems include, but are not limited to,
a rupture disk indicator, magnetic
sensor, motion detector on the pressure
relief valve stem, flow monitor, pressure
monitor, or parametric monitoring
system. The device(s) or monitoring
systems must be capable of meeting the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Identifying the pressure release;
(2) Recording the time and duration of
each pressure release; and
(3) Notifying operators immediately
that a pressure release is occurring.
(c) If any pressure relief device in
remediation material service releases
directly to the atmosphere as a result of
a pressure release actuation event,
follow the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) You must calculate the quantity of
HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart
released during each pressure release
actuation event. Calculations may be
based on data from the pressure relief
device monitoring alone or in
combination with process parameter
monitoring data and process knowledge.
(2) You must determine the total
number of pressure release actuation
events that occurred during the calendar
year for each pressure relief device.
(3) You must determine the total
number of pressure release actuation
events for each pressure relief device for
which the analysis conducted as
required by paragraph (c)(4) of this
section concluded that the pressure
release was due to a force majeure
event, as defined in § 63.7957.
(4) You must complete an analysis to
determine the source, nature and cause
of each pressure release actuation event
as soon as practicable, but no later than
45 days after a pressure release
actuation event.
(5) You must identify corrective
measures to prevent future such
pressure release actuation event s as
soon as practicable, but no later than 45
days after a pressure release actuation
event.
(6) You must implement the
corrective measure(s) identified as
required by paragraph (c)(5) of this
section within 45 days of the pressure
release actuation event or as soon
thereafter as practicable. For corrective
measures that cannot be fully
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
implemented within 45 days following
the pressure release actuation event, you
must record the corrective measure(s)
completed to date, and, for measure(s)
not already completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates,
no later than 45 days following the
pressure release actuation event.
(d) The pressure relief devices listed
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) are not
subject to the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(1) Pressure relief devices designed
and operated to route all pressure
releases through a closed vent system to
a drain system meeting the requirements
of §§ 63.7915–63.7918, or to a fuel gas
system, process or control device
meeting the requirements of §§ 63.7925–
63.7928.
(2) Pressure relief devices in heavy
liquid service, as defined in § 63.1001 or
§ 63.1020, as applicable.
(3) Thermal expansion relief valves.
(4) Pilot-operated pressure relief
devices where the primary release valve
is routed through a closed vent system
to a control device or back into the
process, to the fuel gas system, or to a
drain system.
(5) Balanced bellows pressure relief
devices where the primary release valve
is routed through a closed vent system
to a control device or back into the
process, to the fuel gas system, or to a
drain system.
(e) Except for the pressure relief
devices described in paragraph (d) of
this section, it is a violation of the
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section for any pressure relief
device in remediation material service
to release directly to the atmosphere as
a result of a pressure release actuation
event(s) described in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Any pressure release actuation
event for which the cause of the event
determined as required by paragraph
(c)(4) of this section was determined to
be operator error or poor maintenance.
(2) A second pressure release
actuation event, not including force
majeure events, from a single pressure
relief device in a 3 calendar-year period
for the same cause for the same
equipment.
(3) A third pressure release actuation
event, not including force majeure
events, from a single pressure relief
device in a 3 calendar-year period for
any reason.
■ 20. Section 63.7925 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
§ 63.7925 What emissions limitations and
work practice standards must I meet for
closed vent systems and control devices?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Whenever gases or vapors
containing HAP are vented through the
closed-vent system to the control
device, the control device must be
operating.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 21. Section 63.7935 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c);
■ c. Revising paragraph (e);
■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph
(f); and
■ e. Adding paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) to
read as follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.7935 What are my general
requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with
the emissions limitations (including
operating limits) and the work practice
standards in this subpart at all times.
The owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions.
(b) At all times, the owner or operator
must operate and maintain any affected
source, 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 a source is
operating in compliance with operation
and maintenance requirements will be
based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but
is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) You must report each instance in
which you did not meet each emissions
limitation and each operating limit that
applies to you. You must also report
each instance in which you did not
meet the requirements for work practice
standards that apply to you. These
instances are deviations from the
emissions limitations and work practice
standards in this subpart. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
46175
deviations must be reported according
to the requirements in § 63.7951.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(4) Continuous monitoring system
(CMS) operation and maintenance
requirements in accordance with
§ 63.7945.
(5) CMS data collection in accordance
with § 63.7946.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 22. Section 63.7941 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2) and paragraph
(b)(4) introductory text to read as
follows:
concentration for a remediation
material, then the results from a
determination of VOHAP concentration
using direct measurement by Method
305 in 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, will be used to determine
compliance with the applicable
requirements of this subpart. We may
perform or require that you perform this
determination using direct
measurement.
■ 25. Section 63.7944 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7941 How do I conduct a performance
test, design evaluation, or other type of
initial compliance demonstration?
§ 63.7944 How do I determine the
maximum HAP vapor pressure of my
remediation material?
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) You must conduct performance
tests under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies based on
representative performance of the
affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and
shutdown unless specified by the
General Provisions. You may not
conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must
record the process information that is
necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you
must make available to the
Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Follow the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this
section to determine compliance with
the facility-wide total organic mass
emissions rate in § 63.7890(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 23. Section 63.7942 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.7942 When must I conduct
subsequent performance tests?
For non-flare control devices, you
must conduct performance tests at any
time the EPA requires you to according
to § 63.7(a)(3).
■ 24. Section 63.7943 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7943 How do I determine the average
VOHAP concentration of my remediation
material?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) In the event that you and we
disagree on a determination using
knowledge of the average total VOHAP
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
(d) In the event that you and us
disagree on a determination using
knowledge of the maximum HAP vapor
pressure of the remediation material,
then the results from a determination of
maximum HAP vapor pressure using
direct measurement by Method 25E in
40 CFR part 60 appendix A, as specified
in paragraph (b) of this section, will be
used to determine compliance with the
applicable requirements of this subpart.
We may perform or require that you
perform this determination using direct
measurement.
■ 26. Section 63.7945 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Failure to meet the requirements
of (a)(1) through (4) of this section is a
deviation and must be reported
according to the requirements in
§ 63.7951(b)(7).
■ 27. Section 63.7951 is amended by:
■ a. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii);
■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(4);
■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(7)
introductory text, (b)(7)(ii), (b)(8)
introductory text, and (b)(8)(i), (iv), and
(vi),
■ d. Adding paragraphs (b)(10) and (11);
■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c); and
■ f. Adding paragraphs (e) through (h) to
read as follows:
§ 63.7951
when?
What reports must I submit and
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For pressure relief devices in
remediation material service subject to
the requirements of § 63.7923 of this
subpart, you must submit the
information listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
and (iii) of this section in the
notification of compliance status
required under § 63.9(h) of this part
within 150 days after the first applicable
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46176
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
compliance date for pressure relief
device monitoring.
(ii) A description of the device or
monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices
and process parameters to be monitored,
and a description of the alarms or other
methods by which operators will be
notified of a pressure release.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(7) For each deviation from an
emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) that occurs at an
affected source for which you are not
using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or CEMS) to comply
with an emissions limitation or work
practice standard required in this
subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and
(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section..
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) Information on the number of
deviations. For each deviation, include
the date, time, and duration, a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an
estimate of the volume of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions, the actions
taken to minimize emissions, the cause
of the deviation (including unknown
cause), as applicable, and the corrective
actions taken to return the affected unit
to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(8) For each deviation from an
emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) or work practice
standard occurring at an affected source
where you are using a continuous
monitoring system (including a CPMS
or CEMS) to comply with the emissions
limitations or work practice standard in
this subpart, you must include the
information specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) and (b)(8)(i) through
(xi) of this section.
(i) Information on the number of
deviations. For each deviation, include
the date, time, and duration, a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an
estimate of the volume of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions, the actions
taken to minimize emissions, the cause
of the deviation (including unknown
cause), as applicable, and the corrective
actions taken to return the affected unit
to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) For each deviation caused when
the daily average value of a monitored
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
operating parameter is less than the
minimum operating parameter limit (or,
if applicable, greater than the maximum
operating parameter limit), the report
must include the daily average values of
the monitored parameter, the applicable
operating parameter limit, and the date
and duration of the period that the
deviation occurred. For each deviation
caused by lack of monitoring data, the
report must include the date and
duration of period when the monitoring
data were not collected and the reason
why the data were not collected.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration
of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to control
equipment problems, process problems,
other known causes, and unknown
causes.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) For pressure relief devices in
remediation material service,
compliance reports must include the
information specified in paragraphs
(b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For pressure relief devices in
remediation material service subject to
§ 63.7920(e) of this subpart, report any
instrument reading of 500 ppm above
the background level or greater, if
detected more than 5 days after a
pressure release.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in
remediation service subject to
§ 63.7923(a), report confirmation that
any monitoring required to be done
during the reporting period to show
compliance was conducted.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in
remediation material service subject to
§ 63.7923(c) of this subpart, report each
pressure release to the atmosphere,
including the following information:
(A) The date, time, and duration of
the pressure release actuation event.
(B) An estimate of the mass quantity
of each HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the pressure
release actuation event and the method
used for determining this quantity.
(C) The source, nature and cause of
the pressure release actuation event.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this
pressure release actuation event.
(E) The measures implemented during
the reporting period to prevent future
such pressure release actuation events,
and, if applicable, the implementation
schedule for planned corrective actions
to be implemented subsequent to the
reporting period.
(11) Pressure tank closure device or
bypass deviation information.
Compliance reports must include the
information specified in paragraph
(b)(11)(iv) of this section when any of
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the conditions in paragraphs (b)(11)(i)
through (iii) of this section are met.
(i) Any pressure tank closure device,
as specified in specified in
§ 63.7895(d)(4) of this subpart and
§ 63.685(h)(2) of this subpart, has
released to the atmosphere.
(ii) Any closed vent system that
includes bypass devices that could
divert a vent a stream away from the
control device and into the atmosphere,
as specified in § 63.7927(a)(2) of this
subpart, has released directly to the
atmosphere.
(iii) Any open-ended valve or line in
an emergency shutdown system which
is designed to open automatically in the
event of a process upset, as specified in
§ 63.1014(c) or § 63.1033(c), has released
directly to the atmosphere.
(iv) The compliance report must
include the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(11)(iv)(A) through (E) of
this section.
(A) The source, nature and cause of
the release.
(B) The date, time and duration of the
discharge.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of
HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart
emitted during the release and the
method used for determining this
quantity.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this
release.
(E) The measures adopted to prevent
future such releases.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Performance test and CMS
performance evaluation reports. Within
60 days after the date of completing
each performance test or continuous
monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in § 63.2)
required by this subpart, the owner or
operator must submit the results of the
performance test or performance
evaluation according to the manner
specified by either paragraph (e)(1) or
(2) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods
supported by the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA’s ERT website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert)
at the time of the test. Submit the results
of the performance test or the
performance evaluation of CMS
measuring relative accuracy test audit
(RATA) pollutants to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
be accessed through the EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://
cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated
through the use of the EPA’s ERT.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website.
(2) Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT
as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at
the time of the test. The results of the
performance test or the performance
evaluation of CMS measuring relative
accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants
by methods that are not supported by
the ERT must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via
CEDRI.
(f) Submitting reports electronically. If
you are required to submit reports
following the procedure specified in
this paragraph, you must submit reports
to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
You must use the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri) for this subpart. The report must
be submitted by the deadline specified
in this subpart, regardless of the method
in which the report is submitted. If you
claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI),
submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate form on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium
as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX
as described earlier in this paragraph.
(g) Claims of EPA system outage. If
you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely
comply with the reporting requirement.
To assert a claim of EPA system outage,
you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7)
of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be
precluded from accessing CEDRI and
submitting a required report within the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
time prescribed due to an outage of
either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred
within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date that the
submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or
unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX
or CEDRI was accessed and the system
was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as
soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(h) Claims of force majeure. If you are
required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX,
you may assert a claim of force majeure
for failure to timely comply with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim
of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force
majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the
period of time beginning five business
days prior to the date the submission is
due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an
event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility
that prevents you from complying with
the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are
acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power
outage).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46177
(2) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the
Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force
majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim
of force majeure and allow an extension
to the reporting deadline is solely
within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting
must occur as soon as possible after the
force majeure event occurs.
■ 28. Section 63.7952 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 63.7952
What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii)
through (v) related to startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions.
(i) For each deviation from an
emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) or work practice
standard occurring at an affected source,
you must record information on the
number of deviations. For each
deviation, include the date, time, and
duration, a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of
each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit, a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions,
the actions taken to minimize
emissions, the cause of the deviation
(including unknown cause), as
applicable, and the corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in
remediation material service, keep
records of the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of
this section, as applicable.
(A) A list of identification numbers
for pressure relief devices that are not
subject to the requirements of
§ 63.7923(a) through (c) under the
provisions of § 63.7923(d).
(B) A list of identification numbers for
pressure relief devices subject to the
requirements of § 63.7923(a) through (c)
that do not consist of or include a
rupture disk.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46178
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(C) A list of identification numbers for
pressure relief devices subject to the
requirements of § 63.7923(a) through (c)
equipped with rupture disks.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in
remediation material service subject to
§ 63.7923(c) of this subpart, keep
records of each pressure release event to
the atmosphere as specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (I) of
this section.
(A) The date, time, and duration of
the pressure release event.
(B) The dates and results of the EPA
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, monitoring following a pressure
release event, if applicable. The results
of each monitoring event shall include
the measured background level and the
maximum instrument reading measured
at each pressure relief device.
(C) The dates replacement rupture
disks were installed following a
pressure release event, if applicable.
(D) An estimate of the mass quantity
of each HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the pressure
release event and the method used for
determining this quantity.
(E) The source, nature and cause of
the pressure release event, including an
identification of the affected pressure
relief device(s) and a statement noting
whether the event resulted from the
same cause(s) identified following a
previous pressure release event.
(F) The corrective measures identified
to prevent future such pressure release
events, or an explanation of why
corrective measures are not necessary.
(G) The actions taken to prevent this
pressure release event.
(H) Records of the corrective measures
implemented, including a description of
the corrective measure(s) completed
within the first 45 days following a
pressure release event, and, if
applicable, the implementation
schedule for planned corrective
measures to be implemented subsequent
to the first 45 days following the
pressure release event, including
proposed commencement and
completion dates.
(I) Records of the number of pressure
release events during each calendar year
and the number of those events for
which the cause was determined to be
a force majeure event. Keep these
records for the current calendar year
and the past five calendar years.
(iv)(A) For pressure tank closure
devices, as specified in § 63.7895(d)(4)
and § 63.685(h)(2), keep records of each
release to the atmosphere, including the
information specified in paragraphs
(C)(1) though (7) of this section.
(B) For each closed vent system that
includes bypass devices that could
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
divert a stream away from the control
device and into the atmosphere, as
specified in § 63.7927(a)(2), and each
open-ended valve or line in an
emergency shutdown system which is
designed to open automatically in the
event of a process upset, as specified in
§ 63.1014(c) or § 63.1033(c), keep
records of each release to the
atmosphere, including the information
specified in paragraphs (C)(1) though (7)
of this section.
(C)(1) The source, nature, and cause of
the release.
(2) The date, time, and duration of the
release.
(3) An estimate of the quantity of HAP
listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted
during the release and the calculations
used for determining this quantity.
(4) The actions taken to prevent this
release.
(5) The measures adopted to prevent
future such release.
(6) Hourly records of whether the
bypass flow indicator specified under
§ 63.7927(a)(2)(i) was operating and
whether a diversion was detected at any
time during the hour, as well as records
of the times of all periods when the vent
stream is diverted from the control
device or the flow indicator is not
operating.
(7) Where a seal mechanism is used
to comply with § 63.7927(a)(2)(ii),
hourly records of flow are not required.
In such cases, you must record that the
monthly visual inspection of the seals or
closure mechanism has been done and
record the duration of all periods when
the seal mechanism is broken, the
bypass line valve position has changed,
or the key for a lock-and-key type lock
has been checked out, and records of
any car-seal that has broken.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Any records required to be
maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA’s
CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make
records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency
or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
■ 29. Section 63.7957 is amended by:
■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition for ‘‘Bypass;’’
■ b. Revising the definition of
‘‘Deviation;’’
■ c. Adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ‘‘Force majeure,’’
‘‘Pressure release,’’ and ‘‘Pressure relief
device or valve;’’
■ d. Revising the definition of ‘‘Process
vent;’’ and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
e. Removing the definition of ‘‘Safety
device.’’
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
§ 63.7957
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Bypass means diverting a process vent
or closed vent system stream to the
atmosphere such that it does not first
pass through an emission control
device.
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including but not limited to any
emissions limitation (including any
operating limit), or work practice
standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions
limitation, (including any operating
limit), or work practice standard in this
subpart regardless of whether or not
such failure is permitted by this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Force majeure event means a release
of HAP directly to the atmosphere from
a pressure relief device that is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Administrator to result from an event
beyond the owner or operator’s control,
such as natural disasters; acts of war or
terrorism; loss of a utility external to the
ethylene production unit (e.g., external
power curtailment), excluding power
curtailment due to an interruptible
service agreement; and fire or explosion
originating at a near or adjoining facility
outside of the site remediation affected
source that impacts the site remediation
affected source’s ability to operate.
*
*
*
*
*
Pressure release means the emission
of materials resulting from the system
pressure being greater than the set
pressure of the pressure relief device.
This release can be one release or a
series of releases over a short time
period.
Pressure relief device or valve means
a safety device used to prevent
operating pressures from exceeding the
maximum allowable working pressure
of the process equipment. A common
pressure relief device is a spring-loaded
pressure relief valve. Devices that are
actuated either by a pressure of less than
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch
gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure
relief devices.
*
*
*
*
*
Process vent means any open-ended
pipe, stack, duct, or other opening
intended to allow the passage of gases,
vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and
this passage is caused by mechanical
means (such as compressors, vacuumproducing systems or fans) or by
process-related means (such as
volatilization produced by heating). For
the purposes of this subpart, a process
vent is neither a pressure relief device
(as defined in this section) nor a stack,
duct or other opening used to exhaust
combustion products from a boiler,
46179
furnace, heater, incinerator, or other
combustion device.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 30. Table 3 to subpart GGGGG of part
63 is revised to read as follows:
As stated in § 63.7940, you must
comply with the applicable General
Provisions requirements according to
the following table:
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.1 ...............................
Applicability ......................
§ 63.2 ...............................
§ 63.3 ...............................
§ 63.4 ...............................
Definitions ........................
Units and Abbreviations ...
Prohibited Activities ..........
§ 63.5 ...............................
Construction/Reconstruction.
Applicability ......................
Initial Applicability Determination; Applicability After
Standard Established; Permit Requirements; Extensions, Notifications.
Definitions for part 63 standards ................................
Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ...........
Prohibited Activities; Compliance date; Circumvention, Severability.
Applicability; applications; approvals ..........................
§ 63.6(a) ...........................
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................
§ 63.6(b)(5) .......................
§ 63.6(b)(6) .......................
§ 63.6(b)(7) .......................
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) .................
[Reserved].
Compliance Dates for
New and Reconstructed
Area Sources That Become Major.
Compliance Dates for Existing Sources.
§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .................
§ 63.6(c)(5) .......................
[Reserved].
Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources
That Become Major.
§ 63.6(d) ...........................
§ 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ................
§ 63.6(e)(3) .......................
[Reserved].
Operation & Maintenance
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Plan
(SSMP).
Compliance Except During SSM.
Methods for Determining
Compliance.
Alternative Standard ........
Opacity/Visible Emissions
(VE) Standards.
Compliance Extension .....
§ 63.6(f)(1) ........................
§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................
§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ................
§ 63.6(h) ...........................
§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ................
§ 63.6(j) ............................
§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ................
§ 63.7(a)(3) .......................
§ 63.7(b)(1) .......................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Compliance Dates for
New and Reconstructed
sources.
Notification .......................
§ 63.7(b)(2) .......................
Presidential Compliance
Exemption.
Performance Test Dates ..
CAA Section 114 Authority.
Notification of Performance Test.
Notification of Rescheduling.
§ 63.7(c) ...........................
Quality Assurance/Test
Plan.
§ 63.7(d) ...........................
Testing Facilities ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
Applies to subpart GGGGG
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance
extension GP apply to area sources that become
major.
Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for 112(f).
Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal.
Yes.
Area sources that become major must comply with
major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were an area source.
Comply according to date in subpart, which must be
no later than 3 years after effective date. For
112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension.
Yes.
Area sources that become major must comply with
major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3
years).
Yes.
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
No, see § 63.7935(b).
No.
.....................................................................................
No, see § 63.7935(b).
Compliance based on performance test, operation
and maintenance plans, records, inspection.
Procedures for getting an alternative standard ..........
Requirements for opacity and visible emissions limits
Yes.
Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with final rule.
Dates for Conducting Initial Performance Testing
and Other Compliance Demonstrations. Must conduct 180 days after first subject to final rule.
Administrator may require a performance test under
CAA section 114 at any time.
Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test .....
If rescheduling a performance test is necessary,
must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled
date of rescheduled date.
Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days
before the test or on date Administrator agrees
with: Test plan approval procedures; performance
audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing.
Requirements for testing facilities ..............................
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No. No opacity standards.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46180
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG—
Continued
Citation
Subject
Brief description
Applies to subpart GGGGG
§ 63.7(e)(1) .......................
Conditions for Conducting
Performance Tests.
Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM. Not a violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
§ 63.7(e)(2) .......................
§ 63.7(e)(3) .......................
Conditions for Conducting
Performance Tests.
Test Run Duration ............
§ 63.7(f) ............................
Alternative Test Method ...
§ 63.7(g) ...........................
Performance Test Data
Analysis.
§ 63.7(h) ...........................
Waiver of Tests ................
§ 63.8(a)(1) .......................
§ 63.8(a)(3) .......................
§ 63.8(a)(4) .......................
Applicability of Monitoring
Requirements.
Performance Specifications.
[Reserved].
Monitoring with Flares ......
Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative.
Must have three test runs of at least one hour each.
Compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three
runs. Conditions when data from an additional test
run can be used.
Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method.
Must include raw data in performance test report.
Must submit performance test data 60 days after
end of test with the Notification of Compliance
Status. Keep data for 5 years.
Procedures for Administrator to waive performance
test.
Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ....
No. You may not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in
such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
Yes.
§ 63.8(b)(1) .......................
Monitoring ........................
§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................
Multiple Effluents and
Multiple Monitoring Systems.
§ 63.8(c)(1) .......................
Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance.
Monitoring System Operation.
Monitoring System Repair
Monitoring System SSM
Plan.
Monitoring System Installation.
§ 63.8(a)(2) .......................
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ....................
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...................
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ..................
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .................
§ 63.8(c)(4) .......................
§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii) ..............
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.8(c)(5) .......................
Continuous Monitoring
System (CMS) Requirements.
Continuous Monitoring
System (CMS) Requirements.
§ 63.8(c)(6) .......................
COMS Minimum Procedures.
CMS Requirements ..........
§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) .................
§ 63.8(d) ...........................
CMS Requirements ..........
CMS Quality Control ........
§ 63.8(e) ...........................
§ 63.8(g)(1)–(4) ................
CMS Performance Evaluation.
Alternative Monitoring
Method.
Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.
Data Reduction ................
§ 63.8(g)(5) .......................
Data Reduction ................
§ 63.9(a) ...........................
Notification Requirements
§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................
§ 63.8(f)(6) ........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Performance Specifications in appendix B of part 60
apply.
Yes.
Unless your rule says otherwise, the requirements
for flares in 63.11 apply.
Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative.
Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems. Must install on each effluent before it is
combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise. If
more than one monitoring system on an emissions
point, must report all monitoring system results,
unless one monitoring system is a backup.
Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent
with good air pollution control practices.
Operate and maintain system as specified in
§ 63.6(e)(1).
Keep part for routine repairs available .......................
Develop an SSM Plan for the monitoring system ......
Yes.
Must install to get representative emissions and parameter measurements. Must verify operational
status before or at performance test.
CMS must be operating except during breakdown,
out-of-control, repair, maintenance, and high-level
calibration drifts.
COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis for each successive 10-second
period and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period. CEMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
COMS minimum procedures ......................................
Zero and High level calibration check requirements ..
Out-of-control periods, including reporting .................
Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc. Must keep quality control plan on
record for 5 years. Keep old versions for 5 years
after revisions.
Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports.
Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative
monitoring.
Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative
relative accuracy tests for CEMS.
COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least
36 evenly spaced data points. CEMS 1-hour averages computed over at least four equally spaced
data points.
Data that cannot be used in computing averages for
CEMS and COMS.
Applicability and State Delegation ..............................
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes. However, COMS are not applicable. Requirements for CPMS are listed in §§ 63.7900 and
63.7913.
No.
Yes. However requirements for CPMS are addressed in § 63.7927.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes. However, COMS are not applicable. Requirements for CPMS are addressed in §§ 63.7900 and
63.7913.
No.
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
46181
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG—
Continued
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ................
Initial Notifications ............
§ 63.9(c) ...........................
Request for Compliance
Extension.
Notification of Special
Compliance Requirements for New Source.
Notification of Performance Test.
Notification of VE/Opacity
Test.
Additional Notifications
When Using CMS.
Submit notification 120 days after effective date. Notification of intent to construct/reconstruct; Notification of commencement of construct/reconstruct;
Notification of startup. Contents of each.
Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed
BACT/LAER.
For sources that commence construction between
proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3
years after effective date.
Notify Administrator 60 days prior ..............................
Yes.
Notify Administrator 30 days prior ..............................
No.
Notification of performance evaluation. Notification
using COMS data. Notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy.
Contents. Due 60 days after end of performance test
or other compliance demonstration, except for
opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after. When to
submit to Federal vs. State authority.
Procedures for Administrator to approve change in
when notifications must be submitted.
Must submit within 15 days after the change ............
Yes. However, there are no opacity standards.
§ 63.9(d) ...........................
§ 63.9(e) ...........................
§ 63.9(f) ............................
§ 63.9(g) ...........................
§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ................
Notification of Compliance
Status.
§ 63.9(i) ............................
§ 63.10(a) .........................
Adjustment of Submittal
Deadlines.
Change in Previous Information.
Recordkeeping/Reporting
§ 63.10(b)(1) .....................
Recordkeeping/Reporting
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) .....
Records related to SSM ..
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ...
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x–xi)
Maintenance Records ......
Records related to SSM ..
CMS Records ...................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) ........
Records ............................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ...............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ..............
Records ............................
Records ............................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ..............
Records ............................
§ 63.10(b)(3) .....................
§ 63.10(c) .........................
§ 63.10(d)(1) .....................
Records ............................
Records ............................
General Reporting Requirements.
Report of Performance
Test Results.
Reporting Opacity or VE
Observations.
Progress Reports .............
§ 63.9(j) ............................
§ 63.10(d)(2) .....................
§ 63.10(d)(3) .....................
§ 63.10(d)(4) .....................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.10(d)(5) .....................
§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ..............
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Reports.
Additional CMS Reports ..
§ 63.10(e)(3) .....................
§ 63.10(e)(3)(i–iii) .............
Reports .............................
Reports .............................
§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv–v) ............
Excess Emissions Reports.
§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv–v) ............
Excess Emissions Reports.
Excess Emissions Report
and Summary Report.
§ 63.10(e)(3)(vi–viii) ..........
§ 63.10(e)(4) .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Reporting COMS data .....
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
Applies to subpart GGGGG
Applies to all, unless compliance extension. When to
submit to Federal vs. State authority. Procedures
for owners of more than 1 source.
General Requirements. Keep all records readily
available. Keep for 5 years.
Exceedance of emission limit during startup, shutdown or malfunction.
Maintenance on air pollution control equipment. .......
Actions during SSM ....................................................
Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control. Calibration
checks. Adjustments, maintenance.
Measurements to demonstrate compliance with
emissions limitations. Performance test, performance evaluation, and visible emissions observation
results. Measurements to determine conditions of
performance tests and performance evaluations.
Records when under waiver .......................................
Records when using alternative to relative accuracy
test.
All documentation supporting Initial Notification and
Notification of Compliance Status.
Applicability Determinations .......................................
Additional Records for CMS .......................................
Requirement to report ................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
When to submit to Federal or State authority ............
Yes.
What to report and when ............................................
No.
Must submit progress reports on schedule if under
compliance extension.
Contents and submission ...........................................
Yes.
Must report results for each CEM on a unit Written
copy of performance evaluation Three copies of
COMS performance evaluation.
Excess Emissions Reports .........................................
Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations).
Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if
there is an excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations). Provision to request semiannual reporting after compliance for one year. Submit report by 30th day
following end of quarter or calendar half. If there
has not been an exceedance or excess emissions
(now defined as deviations), report contents is a
statement that there have been no deviations.
Must submit report containing all of the information
in §§ 63.10(c)(5–13) and 63.8(c)(7–8).
Requirements for reporting excess emissions for
CMSs (now called deviations). Requires all of the
information in §§ 63.10(c)(5–13) and 63.8(c)(7–8).
Must submit COMS data with performance test data
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
No.
Yes. However, COMS are not applicable.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
46182
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG—
Continued
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.10(f) ..........................
Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting.
Control and work practice
requirements.
Delegation ........................
Addresses ........................
Procedures for Administrator to waive .......................
Yes.
Requirements for flares and alternative work practice
for equipment leaks.
State authority to enforce standards ..........................
Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests
are sent.
Test methods incorporated by reference ...................
Yes.
Yes.
Public and confidential information ............................
Yes.
§ 63.11 .............................
§ 63.12 .............................
§ 63.13 .............................
§ 63.14 .............................
§ 63.15 .............................
Incorporation by Reference.
Availability of Information
Applies to subpart GGGGG
Yes.
Yes.
[FR Doc. 2019–17223 Filed 8–30–19; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03SEP2.SGM
03SEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46138-46182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17223]
[[Page 46137]]
Vol. 84
Tuesday,
No. 170
September 3, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site
Remediation Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46138]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833; FRL-9998-13-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU19
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site
Remediation Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Site Remediation source category. This
proposal presents the results of the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Based
on the results of the residual risk review, the EPA is proposing that
risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable and that no
revision to the standards is required to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Based on the technology review, we are
proposing to amend the requirements for leak detection and repair
(LDAR). In addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to revise
regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), including adding requirements
for pressure relief devices; to add requirements for electronic
submittal of semiannual reports and performance test results; to
clarify provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and lines; and to
make minor clarifications and corrections. The proposed revisions to
the rule would increase the level of emissions control and
environmental protection provided by the Site Remediation NESHAP. We
are also requesting additional comment related to subcategorization of
sources relating to certain exemption provisions of the original rule
that were proposed for removal in 2016.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before October 3, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 9, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/site-remediation-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information
on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0833, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0833 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0833.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2865; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Matthew Woody, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1535;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected].
For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact
Theresa Lowe, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D143-05), Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number
(919) 541-4786; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Marcia Mia, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7042; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0833. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.
[[Page 46139]]
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of
information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
The EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed
rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an alpha-
numeric identifier (e.g., ``C-1,'' ``C-2,'' ``C-3'') to provide a
consistent framework for effective and efficient provision of comments.
Accordingly, the EPA asks that commenters include the identifier in
either a heading, or within the text of each comment (e.g., ``In
response to solicitation of comment C-1, . . .'') to make clear which
comment solicitation is being addressed. The EPA emphasizes that the
Agency is not limiting comment to these identified areas and encourages
provision of any other comments on topics within the scope of this
proposal.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally achievable control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRC National Research Council
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
[[Page 46140]]
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and 112(d)(3)?
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for
affected sources?
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
D. Additional Modeling for Site Remediation
E. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
F. What other actions are we proposing?
G. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comment
A. Request for Comment Regarding CERCLA/RCRA Exempt Sources
B. Request for Comment on all Aspects of the Risk and Technology
Review
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities conducting site remediations subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP may be affected by this proposed action. As defined
in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992)
and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List,
Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Site Remediation
source category is any facility engaged in the cleanup of sites that
possess contaminated media. Sites undergoing remediation of
contaminated media include, but are not limited to, any facility at
which organic materials currently are or have been in the past stored,
processed, treated, or otherwise managed at the facility. These
facilities include organic liquid storage terminals, petroleum
refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, and other manufacturing
facilities with collocated site remediation activities. Units requiring
cleanup can include hazardous waste dumps, industrial surface
impoundments, leaking tanks, and municipal, industrial, and combined
landfills. Site remediation includes, but is not limited to, the
following activities: Contaminated soils cleaning; soil vapor
extraction (SVE); groundwater cleanup; oil recovery from below ground;
surface flow control; waste material removal from the site; treatment
of waste material after removal; and cleansing of water mains, sewers,
wetlands, and water bodies that have been contaminated by wastes. Site
remediation does not include the installation of controls to municipal
solid waste landfills to comply with the new source performance
standards or Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) emission guidelines.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... 40 CFR part 63, 325211, 325192,
subpart GGGGG. 325188, 32411,
49311, 49319, 48611,
42269, 42271.
Federal Government............ ................. Federal agency
facilities that
conduct site
remediation
activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/site-remediation-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the
proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information
on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies''
that may be appropriate
[[Page 46141]]
to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to
as the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more
comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112
Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in
the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. NRDC v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers,
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category?
The EPA promulgated the final Site Remediation NESHAP at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGGG on October 8, 2003. The NESHAP applies to
``remediation material.'' Site remediation means one or more activities
or processes used to remove, destroy, degrade, transform, immobilize,
or otherwise manage remediation material. Monitoring or measuring of
contamination levels in media, whether by using wells, sampling, or
other means, is not considered to be a site remediation. The rule
applies only to active remedial operations at sites that are major
sources with affected facilities subject to another MACT standard. The
Site Remediation NESHAP applies to various types of affected sources
including process vents, remediation material management units, and
equipment leaks. The affected source for process vents is the entire
group of process vents associated with the in-situ and ex-situ
remediation processes used at the site to remove, destroy, degrade,
transform, or immobilize hazardous substances in the remediation
material. Examples of process vents for in-situ remediation processes
include the discharge vents to the atmosphere used for SVE and
underground bioremediation processes. Examples of process vents for ex-
situ remediation processes include vents for thermal desorption,
bioremediation, and stripping processes (air or steam stripping). The
affected source for remediation material management units is the entire
group of tanks, surface
[[Page 46142]]
impoundments, containers, oil-water separators, and transfer systems
used for the site remediation activities involving clean-up of
remediation material. The affected source for equipment leaks is the
entire group of remediation equipment components (pumps, valves, etc.)
that is intended to operate for 300 hours or more during a calendar
year in remediation material service and that contains or contacts
remediation material having a concentration of regulated HAP equal to
or greater than 10 percent by weight.
The Site Remediation MACT standards include a combination of
equipment standards, work practice standards, operational standards,
and performance standards for each of the affected emission sources
noted above.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The primary sources of data for the risk assessment are EPA
databases. These include the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO) database, which was queried to identify facilities
potentially subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP. Information from
this search was then used in a query of the EPA's National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) to identify site remediation emission sources,
quantities of emissions, and emissions release characteristics. The EPA
also reviewed the Toxic Release Inventory to determine whether that
data would be useful in supplementing the information extracted from
the NEI.
We reviewed a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider in the
technology review and to provide further information for the risk
assessment. These included the Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC), NESHAP for various
industries that were promulgated since the Site Remediation NESHAP was
promulgated, major source operating permits, minor and synthetic minor
source operating permits, and academic and trade literature.
The RBLC provides a central database of air pollution control
technology information and can help identify appropriate technologies
to mitigate most air pollutant emission streams: https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. As site
remediation may include sources from any industrial activity, we
searched the RBLC with a focus on control of off-gasses in disparate
applications, including processes in three broad categories:
Miscellaneous Combustion, Waste Combustion and Waste Disposal, and
Other Waste Processing and Disposal. Each of these three categories was
further searched more specifically. For Miscellaneous Combustion, the
EPA searched emission control afterburners and incinerators, digester
and landfill gas flares, and other miscellaneous combustion. For Waste
Combustion and Waste Disposal categories, the search included mixed/
other waste combustion/incineration. Finally, the search under Other
Waste Processing and Disposal included contaminated soil treatment,
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and other
waste processing and disposal facilities.
The EPA also reviewed the NESHAP for various industries that were
promulgated since the Site Remediation NESHAP was promulgated. We
reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses
associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices,
processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that
could be applied to emission sources in the Site Remediation source
category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy
implications associated with the use of these technologies.
The EPA searched available state databases for minor source permits
and synthetic minor source permits of facilities performing
remediation. The Technology Review memorandum in the docket lists the
permits reviewed and summarizes key findings about the remediation
projects and emissions controls in use. Other scientific literature was
reviewed for new and novel control technologies in use at site
remediation sources and similar sources to control volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and HAP air emissions. Literature for controls in use
for land farming applications and material extraction activities was
also reviewed. For a list of material reviewed, see the memorandum, CAA
section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Site Remediation Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
Documents from previous rulemakings for the Site Remediation source
category can be found in the docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0021.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
[[Page 46143]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel
are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we last updated the
NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data
[[Page 46144]]
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Site
Remediation Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in
the eight primary steps below) are consistent with those described by
the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009;
\4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are
also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing. (EPA-452/R-09-006; June 2009.) https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
a. Sources Subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP
The EPA began compiling the list of facilities for the risk review
by searching for facilities identified as being subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP in the EPA's ECHO database. There are currently 102
facilities identified as ``subject to NESHAP GGGGG'' in ECHO. This list
of facilities was used as the basis for a query into the NEI to obtain
facility and emissions data for the 2014 reporting year.
Of the 102 facilities with data retrieved from the 2014 NEI, six
facilities reported emissions under the Source Classification Code
(SCC) for site remediation, and 96 reported emissions only from their
primary activity and did not report any emissions for remediation
activities. We attribute the absence of site remediation data for these
96 facilities to either the facilities' completion of site remediation
activities or reporting of site remediation emissions data under other
SCCs in the NEI. The EPA chose to model all 102 facilities rather than
only the six for which remediation data was reported, in order to take
the broadest possible approach to the risk assessment. For example,
while a remediation may not have been occuring in 2014 that would be
reported in the 2014 inventory, the EPA assumed that a remediation
would have taken place at some point at all 102 facilities since
adoption of the Site Remediation NESHAP. By including all 102
facilities, the EPA attempted to estimate the risk of anyone who may
have been exposed to risk from a remediation at an affected source,
regardless of the current (as of 2014) status of a specific remediation
action.
To address the lack of apparent site remediation emissions data for
these 96 facilities, the EPA developed a profile of site remediation
emissions for each facility based on the facility's primary processes.
Since site remediation projects occur at many different types of
industrial facilities, ranging from petroleum refineries to federal
facilities, and the emissions from the site remediation are likely a
subset of HAP emitted by the facility, this emissions profile approach
was used to account for the disparate nature of sources with site
remediation activities. To develop the emission profiles for each
facility, the EPA used the six facilities that reported HAP emissions
both from their remediation activities and from their whole facility in
the NEI and determined the proportion of remediation HAP emissions to
facility-wide HAP emissions for each facility. Of the six facilities,
the highest proportion of remediation to whole-facility HAP emissions
was 0.79 percent. For the other 96 facilities, the EPA used this
proportion to assign 0.79 percent of the total amount of each HAP
reported in the NEI for the whole facility to the Site Remediation
source category for each facility, arriving at a unique profile of site
remediation emissions for each facility.
With respect to the risk analysis, the EPA considers this to be a
conservative approach to addressing the lack of remediation emissions
reported in the NEI. First, the data show that remediation emissions
are generally small compared to major source emissions at affected
facilities, and the highest proportion of remediation emissions from
the six facilities was chosen for the remediation emissions profiles.
Second, all process pollutants emitted by a facility were included as
the universe of potential pollutants emitted during remediation. While
site remediation projects likely emit only a subset of the HAP emitted
by the facility, this assumption was made to ensure no specific
pollutant was excluded that could represent risk from that facility.
For several facilities, we found that the emissions profile approach
had resulted in estimated site remediation emissions that included
ethylene oxide. These ethylene oxide emissions were removed from the
source category risk analysis because the EPA considered that ethylene
oxide would be unlikely to persist in contaminated media long enough to
be emitted during a site remediation. Additional details on this
determination can be found in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Site
Remediation Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. The
EPA requests comment on this model plant approach to address data gaps
in the RTR, and HAP emissions from the Site Remediation source
category. (C-1)
b. Sources Exempt From the Site Remediation NESHAP
The Site Remediation NESHAP currently exempts site remediation
activities conducted under federal oversight authority under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective
action or other required RCRA order (see 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(3)). In
2016, in response to a petition for
[[Page 46145]]
reconsideration regarding this exemption and other aspects of the
NESHAP, the EPA proposed to revise the NESHAP to remove the exemption
for site remediation activities conducted under the authority of CERCLA
or RCRA (81 FR 29821, May 13, 2016). At proposal, the EPA developed a
list of 125 facilities that could potentially become subject to the
rule upon promulgation if the exemption for remediation projects
subject to RCRA or CERCLA standards was removed.\5\ Although exempt
from the regulatory requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP, these
facilities are part of the Site Remediation source category. To
understand both the risks from the facilities already subject to the
Site Remediation NESHAP requirements and the risks from the facilities
exempt from the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements, these groups of
facilities were kept separate for the purposes of the risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Stobert, L. EC/R Inc. to Hirtz, J., EPA/OAQPS. National
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Amendments to Remove the
Exemption for Facilities Performing Site Remediations under CERCLA
or RCRA in the NESHAP for Site Remediation. February 4, 2016. EPA
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021-0055. The EPA estimated in 2016
that of the 125 facilities listed, only 69 would likely become
subject to the rule. For the purpose of the risk review, the EPA
modeled the 118 facilities that could be identified in the NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A process similar to that used to estimate emissions from affected
facilities was used for the exempt facilities. The EPA began with the
list of 125 facilities previously developed and queried the NEI to
obtain facility and emissions data for the 2014 reporting-year.
Information was available in the NEI for 118 of these facilities.\6\ Of
the 118 facilities with data retrieved from the NEI, 10 facilities
reported emissions under the SCC for site remediation, and 108 reported
emissions only from their production activity and did not report any
emissions for remediation activities. For these 108 facilities, the EPA
applied the same site remediation emissions ratio as that used for
affected sources to the whole-facility HAP emissions to arrive at a
unique site remediation emission profile for each facility. For these
facilities, we used the same assumptions with respect to ethylene oxide
emissions as were made in the affected facility modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Seven of the 125 facilities were unable to be clearly
identified in the NEI and were not modeled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
For the Site Remediation source category, the EPA treated actual
emissions as allowable emissions. Allowable emissions under typical
MACT standards are the emissions that would occur under full-capacity
potential operating conditions and as allowed under the applicable MACT
standards. These are the conditions included in the title V permit for
the facility. In the case of site remediation, most remediation
projects do not appear in the title V permit or appear there for
approximately the duration of the remediation and are then removed.
Since most facilities performing remediation have the incentive to
conclude remediation expeditiously, the EPA assumed that actual
emissions would equal allowed emissions under a facility permit. Where
no permit condition was available, the EPA assumed the remediation was
being conducted at full capacity to complete the remediation as soon as
possible. Based on the NEI data available and the relatively little
information found in title V permits for remediation projects, the EPA
modeled actual emissions as allowable emissions.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\7\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\8\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \9\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\9\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
[[Page 46146]]
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m \3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \10\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recorddisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\11\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment.
We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or
after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and
Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May
2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\12\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Site
Remediation Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both
are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute
[[Page 46147]]
inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute dose-
response values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels
(AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour
exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ
is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by
the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-
response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \13\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\14\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\14\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \15\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ American Industrial Hygiene Association. ERPGS Procedures
and Responsibilities. March 2014. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, we used a default acute emissions
multiplier of 10 as hourly emissions data from site remediation
activities were generally not available.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure the acute HQ is an off-site
location.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any PB-HAP, as
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume
1, Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf).
For the Site Remediation source category, we identified PB-HAP
emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds,
polycyclic organic matter (POM), and lead compounds, so we proceeded to
the next step of the evaluation. In this step, we determine whether the
facility-specific emission rates of the emitted PB-HAP are large enough
to create the potential for significant human health risk through
ingestion exposure under reasonable worst-case conditions. To
facilitate this step, we use previously developed screening threshold
emission rates for several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical
upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction
with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening
threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds,
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and POM.
Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential,
the pollutants above represent a conservative list for inclusion in
multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201308/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-
specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the screening threshold
emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the potential for significant
human health risks via the ingestion pathway (combined ingestion rates
for a fisher and farmer scenario). We call this application of the
TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a
facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate is a ``screening value.''
[[Page 46148]]
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment (ingestion rates are decoupled into separate upper-bound
ingestion rates for the fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios).
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment for the fisher
scenario, we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify
actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher
only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. For the Tier 2
farmer scenario, we assume the farmer consumes meat, eggs, vegetables,
and fruit grown near the facility. If further Tier 2 screening is
necessary for the farmer scenario, we may also assess the gardener
scenario. For the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener only grows
and consumes eggs, vegetables, and fruit at the same ingestion rate as
the farmer. For Tier 2, we replace the meteorology used in the Tier 1
screening assessment with the local meteorology near each facility. We
then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility based on an
understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the
screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and USGS
waterbody data. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available, we
may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment, or if the screening values
are excessively high, go straight to a site-specific assessment
utilizing TRIM FaTE. If PB-HAP emission rates do not exceed a Tier 2
screening value of 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks
below a level of concern.
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment
indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering
the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control
options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission
reductions are applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the
RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and
incremental risk reductions.
6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Site Remediation source
category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Site Remediation
source category, we identified emissions of arsenic
[[Page 46149]]
compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, POM, HCl, and
hydrofluoric acid. Because one or more of the environmental HAP
evaluated (arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds,
POM, lead compounds, and HCl, and hydrofluoric acid) are emitted by at
least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second
step of the evaluation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The environmental HAP emitted by facilities modeled were
not attributed to Site Remediation source category emissions, but
rather were emitted from other emission points at the facility.
These pollutants were profiled as part of model plant emissions
because the facility otherwise emits environmental HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. The
secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental
risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against
adverse welfare effects which can include ``effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and
hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on
personal comfort and well-being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
the size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (Calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset
from that used for the source category assessments described in this
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are
emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of
each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Site
Remediation Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this
action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide
analyses,
[[Page 46150]]
including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category
contribution to facility-wide risks.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this
action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for
this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated
with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document,
Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment
Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\17\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\19\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\18\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\19\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those
[[Page 46151]]
developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. For this source category,
together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure
scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located
at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur
simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and hydrogen
chloride). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air
concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard
for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of
these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment
that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input
uncertainty.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in
[[Page 46152]]
environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the
usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hour-by-
hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use
those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)?
To ensure that CAA section 112 standards apply at all times, the
EPA is proposing to add provisions for pressure relief device (PRD)
releases and for bypass lines on closed vent systems. The results and
proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3) are presented below.
The acronym ``PRD'' means pressure relief device and is common
vernacular to describe the variety of devices regulated as PRDs or
valves (see the end of this section for our proposed addition of the
definition for ``pressure relief device'' or ``valve,'' to provide
clarity). PRDs are designed to remain closed during normal operation,
but they may ``actuate'' (e.g., the valve seat opens or a rupture disk
ruptures) in the event of an overpressure in the system caused by
operator error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment
failure, or other unexpected cause that results in immediate venting of
gas from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or
equipment damage. For the Site Remediation source category, emissions
vented directly to the atmosphere from a PRD actuation in remediation
material service may contain HAP that would have been subject to
control under the Site Remediation NESHAP, if the PRD actuation had not
occurred (e.g., through a process vent standard). However, the EPA
recognizes that the characteristics of a release from a PRD may be
different from HAP emission generated from remediation processes under
typical operating conditions (i.e., non malfunction) and which are
routed through a process vent.
The Site Remediation NESHAP currently regulates fugitive emissions
from PRDs, when they are seated, through the equipment leak provisions.
The equipment leak provisions also require that the PRD be returned to
a condition of no detectable emissions, after a pressure release;
however, these equipment leak provisions do not establish a standard
for emissions releases from a PRD when the PRD actuates. In addition,
the current Site Remediation NESHAP follows the EPA's previous practice
of exempting SSM events from otherwise applicable emission standards.
Consequently, with emissions releases from a PRD release actuation
event treated as a type of malfunction, the Site Remediation NESHAP did
not restrict emissions releases from a PRD actuation event to the
atmosphere (i.e., they were exempt from the otherwise applicable
emission standards). In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the Court determined SSM exemptions in section 112 standards
violate the CAA. Section IV.E.2 of this preamble contains additional
discussions on the removal of the SSM exemptions for this source
category.
We evaluated the Site Remediation NESHAP provisions for PRDs to
ensure a standard continuously applies during malfunctions that result
in an emissions release from a PRD actuation event, consistent with the
Sierra Club v. EPA decision. First, we determined that emissions
releases from PRD actuation events that vent to a closed vent system
and control device are appropriately regulated. We are proposing at 40
CFR 63.7923 that emissions releases from a PRD actuation event routed
through a closed vent system to a control device or to a process, fuel
gas system, or drain system must meet the requirements at 40 CFR
63.7925 to 40 CFR 63.7928 for the applicable control system.
Second, the EPA determined that emissions from PRD actuation events
that vent directly to the atmosphere as the result of a malfunction may
not meet an applicable emission standard for this source category.
Therefore, we examined whether it would be feasible to establish a
numeric emission standard for emissions releases from PRD actuation
events that vent directly to the atmosphere.
As detailed here, we determined it is not feasible to regulate
emissions from PRD actuation events through a numeric emission
standard, and, therefore, it is more appropriate to regulate emissions
releases from PRD events that vent to the atmosphere through work
practice standards under CAA section 112(h), established consistent
with CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA is proposing work practice
standards at 40 CFR 63.7923 that are intended to reduce the number of
emissions releases from PRD actuation events and will incentivize
[[Page 46153]]
owners or operators to eliminate the causes of emissions releases from
PRD actuation events that vent directly to the atmosphere.
When the EPA initially promulgated the Site Remediation NESHAP, it
did not consider malfunction events when establishing emissions
standards for the various emissions sources at site remediation
facilities. In undertaking that consideration now, we propose that it
is not feasible to regulate emissions releases from PRD actuation
events that vent to the atmosphere using numeric emission limits due to
technological and economic limitations that make it impracticable to
measure emissions from PRDs which have actuated. CAA section 112(h)(1)
states that the EPA may prescribe a work practice standard or other
requirement, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or
(f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is
not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)
further defines the term ``not feasible'' in this context as meaning
that ``the application of measurement technology to a particular class
of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations.'' We consider it appropriate to establish a work practice
standard for emissions releases from PRD actuation events that vent to
the atmosphere as provided in CAA section 112(h), because the
application of a measurement methodology for emissions releases from
PRD actuation events that vent directly to the atmosphere is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations. As discussed
previously, PRDs are designed to remain closed during normal operations
and release emissions only during nonroutine and unplanned events, and
the venting time can be very short and may vary widely in emissions
composition and flow rate.
Additionally, it would be economically prohibitive to construct an
appropriate conveyance and install and operate continuous monitoring
systems for each individual PRD that vents directly to the atmosphere
in order to attempt to quantitatively measure an actuation release
event that may occur infrequently. See U.S. v. Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d
579, 664-67 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Further, we have not identified any
available, technically feasible continuous emission monitoring system
that can accurately determine a mass release quantity of HAP given the
flow, composition, and compositional variability of potential PRD
releases that vent directly to the atmosphere from remediation units.
Rather, we have identified only monitoring systems capable of alerting
an owner or operator when an emissions release from a PRD actuation
event occurs. Consequently, we propose that it is appropriate to
establish a work practice standard for emissions releases from PRD
actuation event that vent directly to the atmosphere as provided in CAA
section 112(h).
We next reviewed information about site remediation facilities to
determine how the best performers are minimizing emissions releases
from PRD actuation events that vent directly to the atmosphere. A
review of the title V operating permits for facilities subject to the
Site Remediation NESHAP indicated that many facilities are subject to
the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (CAP) rule (40 CFR 68.215
requires permits to list 40 CFR part 68 as an applicable requirement,
if subject) for at least some portion of the facility. As a result, we
further reviewed this rule for consideration in developing a PRD work
practice standard.
The CAP rule requires facilities to develop a Risk Management Plan
that includes a hazard assessment, an accident prevention program and
an emergency response program. The CAP rule includes three program
levels which dictate the requirements for the hazard assessment,
accident prevention program and emergency response program based on the
types of chemicals and processes used at a facility. If the
applicability of the CAP rule extends to site remediation affected
facilities, the facilities would fall under either prevention program
level 1 or 3 (depending on a facility's NAICS code). We evaluated
program 3, which is more stringent, because based on a review of the
rule's applicability requirements and preamble rationale, it is our
understanding that site remediation facilities may not be subject to
the program 1 criteria. We also chose to evaluate program 3 because if
any facility is subject to program 3 and the Site Remediation NESHAP,
those sources would be the best performers in the source category,
requisite for a MACT determination. The program 3 prevention program
includes: Documentation of process safety information, conducting a
hazard analysis, documentation of operating procedures, employee
training, on-going maintenance, and incident investigations. The
process safety information documented must include information
pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances in the process,
the technology of the process, and the process equipment (including
relief valves). When conducting the hazard analysis, facilities must
identify, evaluate, and control the hazards in the process. Facilities
that use controls may consider the application of detection
methodologies (e.g., process monitoring and control instrumentation) to
provide early warning of releases. The operating procedures must
address multiple operating scenarios (e.g., normal operations, startup,
emergency shutdown) and provide instructions for safely conducting
process activities. The acts of conducting the hazard analysis and
documenting operating procedures are similar to prevention measures,
discussed below, though we note a specific number of measures or
controls is not specified for the program 3 prevention program.
Incident investigations must document the factors that contributed to
an incident and any resolutions and corrective actions (incident
investigations are consistent with analysis of the cause of the release
and corrective measures, discussed below). Facilities are also required
to document this information in a Risk Management Plan that must be
updated at least every 5 years.
Next, we considered that some companies operating site remediation
facilities also own and operate petroleum refineries or chemical
production facilities and may have established company-wide best
practices as a result of specific state and Federal requirements. For
example, petroleum refineries located in certain counties in California
are subject to and complying with specific requirements for PRDs such
as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Rule 8-28-304
and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1173.
These rules also formed the basis of the work practice standards
promulgated for emissions releases from PRD actuation events at
petroleum refineries in the recent Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR
performed by the EPA (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015).
Considering our review of the EPA's Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions and company-wide best practices that site remediation
facilities may have implemented, we expect that the best performing
site remediation facilities have implemented a program for emissions
releases from PRD actuation events that vent directly to the atmosphere
that consists of conducting an analysis of the cause of the PRD
actuation event and the implementation of corrective measures. We used
this information as the basis of the work practice standards that we
are proposing at 40 CFR 63.7923.
Specifically, we are proposing a limit on the number of emissions
releases
[[Page 46154]]
from PRD actuation events that if exceeded, would result in a violation
to the work practice standard for emissions releases for PRD actuation
events that vent directly to the atmosphere. We believe setting
criteria to determine a deviation is necessary for the work practice to
be effective. We considered limits on the number of emissions releases
from PRD actuation events over a 3-year period. Based on a Monte Carlo
analysis of random rare events (conducted for the Petroleum Refinery
Sector MACT), we note that a facility is likely to have two or three
events in an average 5-year period when a long time-horizon (e.g., 20
years) is considered. Therefore, we are proposing to limit the number
of emissions releases from a PRD actuation event from a single PRD to
either two or three (depending on the PRD release actuation event
cause) in a 3-year period as the basis of a deviation of the work
practice standard. We considered it reasonable to use a 3-year period
rather than a 5-year period given that company-wide best practices
forming the basis of the work practice standards promulgated for
emissions releases from PRD actuation events at petroleum refineries
are also our underlying basis for the proposed work practice standards
at site remediation facilities. We are proposing that it is a deviation
of the work practice standard if a single PRD that vents emissions from
an actuation event directly to the atmosphere has two releases within a
3-year period due to the same cause. We believe this provision will
help ensure that analyses and corrective actions are conducted
effectively. Otherwise, we are proposing that it is a deviation of the
work practice standard if a single PRD that vents emissions from an
actuation event directly to the atmosphere has three releases within a
3-year period for any reason. In addition, we are proposing that any
emissions release directly to the atmosphere from a PRD actuation event
for which the cause was determined to be operator error or poor
maintenance is a violation of the work practice standard. We are
proposing that ``force majeure'' events would not be included when
counting the number of releases. We are proposing to define ``Force
majeure'' as including events resulting from natural disasters, acts of
war or terrorism, or external power curtailment beyond the facility's
control. These types of events are beyond the control of the owner or
operator. We are providing that these events should not be included in
the event count, but that they would be subject to the PRD actuation
event cause analysis in order to confirm or determine whether the
release was due to a force majeure event.
In addition, consistent with our treatment of site remediation
process vents (in general, an open PRD is essentially the same as a
site remediation process vent that is vented directly to the
atmosphere), we believe it is appropriate to exclude certain types of
PRDs that have very low potential to emit based on their type of
service, size, and/or pressure from the proposed work practice standard
for PRD releases that vent directly to the atmosphere. Both the CAP and
the California petroleum refinery PRD rules also exempt or impose
simpler requirements for certain PRDs. We are proposing at 40 CFR
63.7923 that the following types of PRDs would not be subject to the
work practice standard for PRDs that vent directly to the atmosphere:
(1) PRDs in heavy liquid service; (2) PRDs that are designed solely to
release due to liquid thermal expansion; and (3) pilot-operated and
balanced bellows PRDs if the primary release valve associated with the
PRD is vented through a control system. With regard to PRDs in heavy
liquid service and thermal relief valves, any release of HAP to the
atmosphere from a PRD in heavy liquid service would be expected to be
small. We are also proposing that pilot-operated PRDs (where emissions
from actuation events can be released to the atmosphere through a pilot
discharge vent) and balanced bellow PRDs (where emissions can be
released to the atmosphere through a bonnet vent) are not subject to
the work practice standard, if the primary release valve associated
with the PRD is vented through a control system. Due to its design,
which includes a bellows to shield the pressure relief stem and top
portion of the valve seat from the discharge vent pressure, a balanced
bellows PRD will not discharge gas to the atmosphere during a pressure
release actuation event, except for potential leaks through the bonnet
vent due to bellows failure or fatigue which are not considered PRD
actuation. Pilot-operated PRDs use a small pilot safety valve that
discharges to the atmosphere to actuate the primary valve or piston,
which then discharges to a control system. The EPA considers balanced
bellows and pilot operated PRDs to be equipment that safely controls
the primary PRD release and reduces HAP emissions to the atmosphere.
The PRDs subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP that vent to a
control device are exempt from LDAR. The PRDs that vent to the
atmosphere are subject to the LDAR provisions of either 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT or UU. Similar to the current provisions, the proposed LDAR
provisions for PRDs require all PRDs that vent to the atmosphere be
tested using EPA Method 21 to ensure the PRD is not leaking above the
detection threshold during normal operation and to ensure it properly
reseats if a release does occur. Those PRDs that vent to control
systems would still be exempt from LDAR requirements given that if a
release were to occur from this specific class of PRDs, it would vent
to a closed vent system and control device.
Finally, to ensure compliance with the proposed work practice
standard for emissions released from PRD actuation events that vent
directly to the atmosphere, we are also proposing to require that
sources monitor these PRDs using a system that is capable of
identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure
release and of notifying operators that a pressure release is
occurring. Pressure release actuation events from PRDs that vent
directly to the atmosphere have the potential to emit large quantities
of HAP. When a pressure release occurs, it is important to identify and
mitigate it as quickly as possible. We are proposing to allow owners
and operators to use a range of methods to satisfy the PRD actuation
detection requirements, including the use of a parameter monitoring
system (that may already be in place) on the process that is sufficient
to indicate that a pressure release has occurred as well as record the
time and duration of that pressure release. For the purposes of
estimating the costs of this requirement, we assume that all PRDs that
would become subject to the proposed standards already have a process
or parameter monitoring system that will indicate the time that a
pressure release has occurred and the duration of the release.
As part of these proposed provisions, we are proposing to add
definitions for ``pressure release actuation event'' and ``pressure
relief device or valve,'' to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. We are also
proposing to remove the definition of ``safety device'' and the
provisions related to safety devices from 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGGGG, which would overlap and be redundant with parts of the proposed
definition of ``pressure relief device or valve'' and the provisions
related to these devices. To our knowledge, pressure relief devices or
valves are the only relevant safety devices used in site remediation
processes.
The Agency recognizes that the treatment of PRDs should be
appropriate to the characteristics of the relevant source category and
need not be
[[Page 46155]]
uniform across all source categories. In developing this proposal, the
EPA was mindful of the limited information it has with respect to PRDs
in site remediation and the diversity of site characteristics. The EPA
seeks comment on whether there are PRDs associated with affected
facility process vents, tanks, containers, separators, or closed vent
systems, and whether PRDs associated with those affected facilities are
routed to a control device through a closed vent system or vent to the
atmosphere. The EPA seeks comment on whether facilities that are
subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP are also subject to EPA's CAP at
40 CFR part 68, OSHA's Process Safety Management rule at 29 CFR
1910.119, BAAQMD Rule 8-28-304, or SCAQMD Rule 1173, and if the latter
set of rules extend to cover PRDs associated with site remediation. The
EPA has proposed MACT work practice standards for PRDs that vent to the
atmosphere based on the best performing sources that are subject to the
other similar NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC-Petroleum Refineries,
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD--Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations).
The EPA seeks comment on whether these MACT work practice standards for
PRDs are appropriate for site remediation.
For the purposes of estimating the costs of this requirement, we
have assumed that operators have existing systems that are capable of
identifying a pressure release to the atmosphere and recording the time
and duration of the event. The EPA has further assumed there is one PRD
per site remediation facility, and one pressure event every 3 years
that would cause the PRD to actuate, triggering an analysis of the
cause of the pressure release actuation event and the need for
corrective measures. The EPA seeks comment on these assumptions.
(Comment C-2) Whether or not data and comments substantiate that there
are currently PRDs at site remediation facilities, the EPA may adopt
provisions addressing PRDs if we conclude that future site-remediation
affected facilities may use these devices.
For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used in
this analysis, see the technical memorandum titled Review of Regulatory
Alternatives for Certain Vent Streams in the Site Remediation Source
Category, which is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833.
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for
affected sources?
As described above, for the Site Remediation source category, we
conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a
multipathway screening assessment for the PB-HAP emitted, and an
environmental risk screening assessment for the PB-HAP and acid gases
(e.g., HCl) emitted from affected sources. We present results of the
risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and
allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Site Remediation source
category is 1-in-1 million driven by site remediation model plant
emissions of arsenic compounds and chromium (VI) compounds. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable emission
levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 1,000
years. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million considering actual and allowable emissions is 400 (see
Table 2 of this preamble). In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer
HI (TOSHI) is less than 1.
Table 2--Site Remediation Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Affected Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Estimated annual
Number of facilities \1\ individual increased risk cancer incidence Maximum chronic Maximum screening acute
cancer risk (in of cancer >=1-in- (cases per year) noncancer TOSHI noncancer HQ
1 million) 1 million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Actual Emissions Level \2\ \3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102......................................... 1 400 0.001 0.1 HQREL = 1
(arsenic compounds).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Whole Facility Emissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 2,300,000 0.5 5 ..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
As presented in Table 2 of this preamble, acute exposure to
emissions from affected sources in the Site Remediation source category
result in a maximum HQ of 1 based on the REL for arsenic compounds. For
more detailed acute risk results refer to the Residual Risk Assessment
for the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The results of the multipathway risk screening assessment indicate
all Tier 2 screening values for PB-HAP emitted from the source category
(arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, and POM) are
less than 1. Based on these results, we are confident that the cancer
risks due to multipathway exposures to these chemicals are lower than
1-in-1 million and the noncancer HIs are less than 1.
In the case of lead, the multipathway risks were assessed by
comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the primary NAAQS
for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that, based on actual
and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead
concentration is 0.0001 [micro]g/m\3\, well below the primary NAAQS of
0.15 [micro]g/m\3\.
[[Page 46156]]
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of PB-HAP (arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds,
mercury compounds, and POM) and acid gases (HCl and HF) emitted by the
source category.
In the case of lead, the environmental risks were assessed by
comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the secondary
NAAQS for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that, based on
actual and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient
lead concentrations were below the secondary NAAQS.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening
assessment, we would not expect environmental risks due to emissions
from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of whole-facility (or ``facility-wide) risks was
performed as described above to characterize the source category risk
in the context of facility-wide risks.\21\ Facility-wide risks were
estimated using the NEI-based data. The maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk posed by the 102 facilities, based on facility-wide
emissions, is 1,000-in-1 million, with ethylene oxide emissions from
facility-wide flares, transfer racks, vents, and fugitive emissions
driving the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence based on whole
facility emissions is 0.5 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess
case in every 2 years. Approximately 2,300,000 people are estimated to
have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from facility-wide HAP
emissions. Facility-wide lifetime individual cancer risks are estimated
to be greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million at three facilities and
55,000 people would be exposed at or above this risk level. Additional
details on this determination can be found in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The facility-wide risk assessment includes all emission
points within the Site Remediation source category (including those
for which there are no standards) as well as other emission points
covered by other NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide (described
above), which are due to emission sources that are not part of the Site
Remediation source category, we intend to evaluate those facility-wide
estimated emissions and risks further and may address these in a
separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is
addressing ethylene oxide based on the results of the latest NATA
released in August 2018, which identified the chemical as a potential
concern in several areas across the country. (NATA is the Agency's
nationwide air toxics screening tool, designed to help the EPA and
state, local, and tribal air agencies identify areas, pollutants, or
types of sources for further examination.) The latest NATA estimates
that ethylene oxide significantly contributes to potential elevated
cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent
of the total number of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven
by an EPA risk value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA will work
with industry and state, local, and tribal air agencies as the EPA
takes a two-pronged approach to address ethylene oxide emissions: (1)
Reviewing and, as appropriate, revising CAA regulations for facilities
that emit ethylene oxide--starting with air toxics emissions standards
for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities and
commercial sterilizers; and (2) conducting site-specific risk
assessments and, as necessary, implementing emission control strategies
for targeted high-risk facilities. The EPA will post updates on its
work to address ethylene oxide on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum
chronic noncancer HI associated with facility-wide emissions is
estimated to be 5 due to natural gas external combustion boiler
emissions of chlorine. A total of three facilities had a facility-wide
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1; two due to emissions of chlorine
and one due to emissions of trichloroethylene.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Site Remediation source
category across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, other races
and multiracial, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, adults without a high school
diploma, adults with a high school diploma, and linguistically
isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Site Remediation: Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at Population with
Nationwide or above 1-in-1 chronic hi above
million due to 1 due to site
site remediation remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 317,746,049 374 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 83 0
Minority............................................... 38 17 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American....................................... 12 14 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 0.4 0
[[Page 46157]]
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)....... 18 0 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 13 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 87 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................ 14 11 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 89 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................ 6 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Site Remediation source category demographic
analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose
approximately 400 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million
and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
percentages of the at-risk population in each demographic group (except
for White) are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide
percentages with the exception of the African American, Above Poverty
Level, and Over 25 and with a High School Diploma demographic groups,
which are slightly higher than their respective nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Site Remediation
Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action.
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in
various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum
noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of
noncancer risk, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the
exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989).
For the Site Remediation source category, the risk analysis
indicates that for affected sources, the cancer risk to the individual
most exposed is 1-in-1 million from both actual and allowable
emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million,
which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk
analysis for affected sources also estimated a cancer incidence of
0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 1,000 years.
Exposures to HAP with noncancer health effects are estimated to result
in a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI below 1 (0.1), as well as a
maximum acute HQ value of 1. Multipathway screening values for affected
sources are below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PB-HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. Considering
all the health risk information and factors discussed above, including
the uncertainties, we propose to find that risk from the affected
facilities in the Site Remediation source category subject to the Site
Remediation NESHAP is acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP.
As discussed above, we are proposing that the risks from this
source category are acceptable. For affected sources, the maximum
cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 1-in-1 million from both
actual and allowable emissions from site remediation processes and
activities. Of the affected sources, two facilities had cancer risks
equal to 1-in-1 million. Neither of these facilities had site
remediation emissions reported to the NEI, and instead risks for both
were based on estimated emissions.
In our ample margin of safety analysis, we identified three control
options that could further reduce HAP emissions from the source
category. We evaluated those options to determine whether any of the
three options is required to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. For process vents at affected sources, as
discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we identified an emissions
control option requiring compliance with a 98-percent reduction rather
than a 95-percent reduction in HAP emissions. To assess the maximum
potential for risk reduction that could result from this process vent
control option, we assumed that the maximum risks for the site
remediation source category are due to emissions from a process vent
with emissions controlled at 95-percent. In this scenario, we estimate
that compliance with a requirement that process vents be 98-percent
controlled could result in reducing source category HAP emissions by
between 0.09 and 0.18 tpy from current emissions levels, with an
incremental cost effectiveness ranging between $1 million to $2
million/ton HAP reduction (section IV.D of this preamble provides
further discussion of the EPA's cost analysis). We estimate this option
would reduce the MIR at the MACT-allowable emissions level for the
source category from 1-in-1 million to 0.4-in-1 million, thus, would
reduce the number of people with cancer risks
[[Page 46158]]
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million from 400 to 0. Although the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI was less than 1, this option would
further reduce it from 0.1 to 0.04. We are proposing that the
considerable cost of this option is not reasonable in light of the
minimal risk reduction achieved. Considering all of the health risks
and other health information considered in our determination of risk
acceptability, the minimal risk reductions associated with this option,
the uncertainty associated with the estimated potential risk
reductions, and the costs associated with this option, we are proposing
that additional HAP emissions controls for site remediation process
vents are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health.
For equipment leaks at affected sources, as discussed in section
IV.D of this preamble, we identified two emission control options:
Option 1 would require the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and pumps, rather than the
thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT; Option 2 would require the
same as Option 1 but would also include the connector LDAR requirements
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. Since actual and MACT-allowable
emissions from equipment leaks are estimated to be the same, the risk
due to equipment leaks at the MACT-allowable level are estimated to be
the same as risk due to equipment leaks at actual emissions levels. In
addition, based on our analysis of estimated baseline equipment leak
emissions,\23\ we assumed that half of the equipment leak emissions are
from non-connector components (i.e., pumps and valves), and the other
half are from connectors. Under Option 1, we estimate the HAP reduction
would be 4.7 tpy from the baseline actual emissions level, with a cost
effectiveness of $2,000/ton HAP reduction. However, baseline risks
associated with equipment leaks are low, and there would be little
change in any of the risk metrics under Option 1. This option would
reduce the MIR from 1-in-1 million to 0.8-in-1 million, and reduce the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from 0.1 to 0.08. In the context of our
ample margin of safety analysis, we are proposing that imposing this
option is not reasonable in light of the minimal risk reduction
achieved. Although this option is not required to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we are proposing this option
as a cost-effective development under our technology review. Under
Option 2 for equipment leaks, we estimate the incremental HAP reduction
would be 5 tpy more than Option 1, with an overall cost effectiveness
of $19,000/ton HAP reduction and a cost effectiveness incremental to
Option 1 of $35,000/ton HAP reduction. Similar to option 1, we found
that the control measure would provide little change to the estimated
risks, but at even higher cost. Therefore, we are proposing that the
cost of the Option 2 standards is not reasonable when weighed against
the minimal risk reduction achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the Proposed
Amendments to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP,
the EPA weighed all health risk measures and information considered in
the risk acceptability determination, along with the costs of emissions
controls and technological feasibility, in making our ample margin of
safety determination. Considering the health risk information and the
little potential for risk reduction from control options identified for
this source category, as well as the high relative cost of that risk
reduction, we propose that the standards for the Site Remediation
source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. We request comments on the ample margin of safety analysis for
this source category.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
Considering the results of our environmental risk screening, we do
not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category, and we are proposing that it is not
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
D. Additional Modeling for Site Remediation
In addition to assessing risk from affected facilities, we also
conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a
multipathway screening assessment for the PB-HAP emitted, and an
environmental risk screening assessment for the PB-HAP and acid gases
(e.g., HCl) emitted from the CERCLA/RCRA exempt sources. Although
exempt from the regulatory requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP,
these facilities are part of the Site Remediation source category. To
understand the risks from the facilities exempt from the Site
Remediation NESHAP requirements, these facilities were analyzed
separately for the purposes of the risk assessment. We present results
of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Residual
Risk Assessment for Exempt Sources in the Site Remediation Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and
allowable emissions, the MIR posed by exempt sources in the Site
Remediation source category is 4-in-1 million driven by site
remediation model plant emissions of chromium (VI) compounds. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable emission
levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 1,000
years. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million considering actual and allowable emissions is 1,100 (see
Table 4 of this preamble). In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer
HI (TOSHI) is less than 1.
[[Page 46159]]
Table 4--Site Remediation Sources Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Exempt Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Estimated annual Maximum screening
Number of facilities \1\ individual cancer increased risk of cancer incidence Maximum chronic acute noncancer
risk (in 1 cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) noncancer TOSHI HQ
million) million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Actual Emissions Level 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118...................................................... 4 1,100 0.001 0.3 <1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Whole Facility Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000 9,000,000 1 7 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from exempt sources in the source category.
\3\ Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
As presented in Table 4 of this preamble, acute exposure to
emissions from exempt sources in the Site Remediation source category
result in a maximum HQ less than 1. For more detailed acute risk
results refer to the Residual Risk Assessment for Exempt Sources in the
Site Remediation Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The results of the multipathway risk screening assessment indicate
all Tier 2 screening values for PB-HAP emitted from exempt sources in
the source category (arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury
compounds, and POM) are less than 1. Based on these results, we are
confident that the cancer risks due to multipathway exposures to these
chemicals are lower than 1-in-1 million and the noncancer HIs are less
than 1.
In the case of lead, the multipathway risks were assessed by
comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the primary NAAQS
for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that, based on actual
and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead
concentration is 0.004 [micro]g/m\3\, well below the primary NAAQS of
0.15 [micro]g/m\3\.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of PB-HAP (arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds,
mercury compounds, and POM) and acid gases (HCl and HF) emitted by
exempt sources in the source category.
In the case of lead, the environmental risks were assessed by
comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the secondary
NAAQS for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that, based on
actual and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient
lead concentrations were below the secondary NAAQS.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening
assessment, we would not expect environmental risks due to emissions
from these sources.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of whole-facility (or ``facility-wide'') risks was
performed as described above to characterize the exempt source risk in
the context of facility-wide risks.\24\ Facility-wide risks were
estimated using the NEI-based data. The maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk posed by the 118 facilities, based on facility-wide
emissions, is 2,000-in-1 million with ethylene oxide from facility-wide
flare emissions driving the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence
from the whole facility is one excess cancer case per year.
Approximately 9,000,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks above
1-in-1 million from facility-wide HAP emissions. Eleven facilities and
98,000 people have facility-wide lifetime individual cancer risk
greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million. Additional details on this
determination can be found in the Residual Risk Assessment for
Facilities Exempt from the Site Remediation Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The facility-wide risk assessment includes all emission
points from exempt facilities within the Site Remediation source
category (including those for which there are no standards) as well
as other emission points covered by other NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the facility-wide risks from exempt facilities due to
ethylene oxide (described above), which are due to emission sources
that are not part of the Site Remediation source category, we intend to
evaluate those facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and
may address these in a separate future action, as appropriate. In
particular, the EPA is addressing ethylene oxide based on the results
of the latest NATA released in August 2018, which identified the
chemical as a potential concern in several areas across the country.
(NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics screening tool, designed to
help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies identify areas,
pollutants, or types of sources for further examination.) The latest
NATA estimates that ethylene oxide significantly contributes to
potential elevated cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S.
(less than 1 percent of the total number of tracts). These elevated
risks are largely driven by an EPA risk value that was updated in late
2016. The EPA will work with industry and state, local, and tribal air
agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged approach to address ethylene
oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate, revising CAA
regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide--starting with air
toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing facilities and commercial sterilizers; and (2) conducting
site-specific risk assessments and, as necessary, implementing emission
control strategies for targeted high-risk facilities. The EPA will post
updates on its work to address ethylene oxide on its website at:
https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum chronic
noncancer HI associated with facility-wide emissions is estimated to be
7 due to chemical manufacturing wastewater treatment emissions of
chlorine. A total of eight facilities had a facility-wide
[[Page 46160]]
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1 due to emissions of one or more of
the following HAP: chlorine; 2,4-toluene diisocyanate; hexamethylene-
1,6-diisocyanate; acrolein; propionaldehyde; acetaldehyde; and
benzo[a]pyrene.
As discussed in section VI.A.1 of this preamble, we are not
proposing requirements for facilities exempt from the emissions control
requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP in this action.
E. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the emission sources in the Site Remediation
source category. To identify such developments since the MACT standards
were promulgated, we consulted the EPA's RBLC, reviewed subsequent
regulatory development efforts, reviewed major source operating permits
and minor and synthetic minor source operating permits, and reviewed
academic and trade literature for control technologies used in the
industry.
For the Site Remediation source category, we did not identify any
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for
storage tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil-water separators,
organic-water separators, transfer systems, land treatment, or material
extraction activities beyond what is currently required in the rule.
For process vents and equipment leaks, we identified additional control
options, and the following sections summarize the results of our
technology review for these emissions sources.
To perform the technology review, we needed information that was
not included in the RTR emissions dataset used for modeling site
remediation risks. Specifically, to evaluate the costs and cost
effectiveness of various control options, we used a model plant
approach for development of estimates for leaking components. This
model plant analysis is not comparable to the model plant approach used
in the risk analysis. The model plant for the technology review created
the basis for evaluating the options of revising the LDAR standards. We
model the number of potential leaking components, the leak rates
applicable to such plants, and the level of emissions from leaking
components under different standards. The component count and leak
rates are the basis for evaluating the relative costs and benefits of
changes that were considered for the LDAR program. Therefore, the model
plant approach we used resulted in baseline emission estimates
different from those included in the risk modeling dataset, which
included its own inventory of emissions due to leaks. Additional
information about our technology review and model plant approach can be
found in the memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review
for the Site Remediation Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this action.
1. Process Vents
The current Site Remediation MACT standards at 40 CFR 63.7890
require emissions from process vents at existing and new affected
sources to be routed through a closed vent system to a control device
achieving at least 95-percent control. While some control devices, such
as carbon adsorption, are assumed to have a control efficiency of 95-
percent, other technologies are capable of achieving greater emissions
control, such as thermal oxidizers. Several of these devices have been
demonstrated to achieve a control efficiency of 98-percent or greater.
Based on the combination of reported control efficiencies for these
devices and known application to low concentration organic vapor gas
streams, we investigated the use of a catalytic thermal oxidizer with a
control efficiency of 98-percent as a potential control option.
Table 5 presents the emission reductions and costs of the 98-
percent control option considered for process vents at existing
affected sources in the Site Remediation source category under the
technology review. Data collected through our search of title V permits
indicate that only some facilities have process vents, and based on
these data, we estimate that approximately six site remediation
facilities have process vents that would require additional control to
reduce emissions by 98 percent. As site remediations vary in the amount
and type of contamination that is being abated, we used two example
remediations to estimate the amount of HAP that could be removed
through the emissions controls. We estimated the capital and annual
costs of complying with an increase from 95- to 98-percent HAP control
for process vents to be the same for either example, with total capital
costs estimated at approximately $400,000 and the total annualized
costs estimated to be approximately $185,000. Based on the two example
facilities, the HAP emissions reduction beyond the current control
requirements could range between 0.09 and 0.18 tpy for the source
category, and the cost effectiveness could range from approximately
$31,000 to $66,000. The incremental cost effectiveness in going to 98-
percent control from 95-percent control could range from approximately
$1 million to $2 million per ton HAP removed.
Table 5--Site Remediation Process Vent Option Emission Reductions and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
HAP emissions Cost cost
Regulatory alternative Example reduction Capital cost Annual cost effectiveness effectiveness
facility (tpy) ($) ($/yr) ($/ton HAP ($/ton HAP
removed) removed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98-percent control...................................... 1 0.09 400,000 185,000 65,000 2,145,000
2 0.18 400,000 185,000 30,000 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our estimate of costs and HAP reduction, we do not
consider increasing the emission reduction to 98-percent to be
reasonable, and we are not proposing to revise the Site Remediation
MACT standards for process vents pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to
require this level of emissions control. We solicit comment on our
analysis and conclusion regarding all aspects of this control option
(Comment C-3).
2. Equipment Leaks
The Site Remediation MACT standards at 40 CFR 63.7920 currently
require compliance with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU, to control emissions from equipment leaks at
existing and new affected sources. While many provisions of these two
standards are the same or similar, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, requires
the use of a more stringent leak definition for valves in gas and vapor
[[Page 46161]]
service and in light liquid service, pumps in light liquid service, and
connectors. Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, lowers the leak
definition for valves from 10,000 ppm (in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT)
to 500 ppm, lowers the leak definition for pump seals from 10,000 ppm
(in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT) to 1,000 ppm, and requires periodic
instrument monitoring of connectors with a leak definition of 500 ppm,
as opposed to instrument monitoring only being required if a potential
leak is detected by visual, audible, olfactory, or other detection
method (in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT). We identified the more
stringent leak definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU as a
development in practices, processes, or control technologies. The more
stringent definitions have, in the years since original promulgation of
the Site Remediation NESHAP in 2003, become widely adopted and are
frequently already required for sources in the Site Remediation source
category under the other applicable NESHAP requirements at these
sources. Making the more stringent level of leak detection more uniform
across a facility will also enhance regulatory consistency, clarity,
and certainty and enhance compliance.
Assuming conservatively that each of the site remediation
facilities currently complies with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT and does
not already comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, we analyzed the
costs and emission reductions of two options: Option 1--requiring the
use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for
valves and pumps; Option 2--requiring the use of the leak detection
thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and pumps and, in
addition, requiring connector monitoring under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU. The estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with these
two options for the site remediation source category are shown in Table
6. For Option 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU valve and pump leak
detection thresholds), we estimated the capital costs to be
approximately $26,000 and the total annualized costs to be
approximately $10,000. The estimated HAP emissions reduction is
approximately 4.7 tpy, and the cost effectiveness is approximately
$2,000/ton. For Option 2 (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU valve and pump
leak detection thresholds and connector monitoring), we estimated the
capital costs to be approximately $95,000 and the total annualized
costs to be approximately $188,000. The estimated HAP emissions
reduction is approximately 9.7 tpy, and the cost effectiveness is
approximately $19,000/ton. The incremental cost effectiveness between
Option 1 and Option 2 is approximately $35,000.
Table 6--Site Remediation Equipment Leak Options Emission Reductions and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
HAP emissions Cost cost
Regulatory alternatives reduction Capital cost Annual cost effectiveness effectiveness
(tpy) ($) ($/yr) ($/ton HAP ($/ton HAP
removed) removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: 40 CFR part 63, 4.7 26,000 10,000 2,000 ..............
subpart UU valve and pump leak
thresholds only................
Option 2: 40 CFR part 63, 9.7 95,000 188,000 19,000 35,000
subpart UU valve and pump leak
detection thresholds and
connector monitoring...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis, the costs of Option 1 are reasonable, given
the level of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved with this
control option. We do not believe the costs of Option 2 are reasonable,
given the level of HAP emissions reduction it would achieve relative to
a much higher incremental cost per ton above Option 1. Therefore, we
are proposing to revise the Site Remediation MACT standards in
accordance with Option 1 for equipment leaks. We solicit comment on our
assessment and conclusions regarding all aspects of both options
(Comment C-4).
F. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP, and requesting
information on two issues for which the EPA has been petitioned for
reconsideration. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of
the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement
to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission
standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various other
changes to require electronic reporting of emissions test results and
to make several minor technical corrections to the regulation text of
40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. Our analyses and proposed changes
related to these issues are discussed below.
1. Standards for Inorganic HAP and Metal Emissions
In the May 13, 2016, proposal on reconsideration, the EPA stated
that it would consider the issue of regulating metals and inorganic HAP
emissions during the risk review. 81 FR 29824. The EPA is proposing to
not set standards for metals and inorganic HAP from site remediation
sources subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP because we do not have
data indicating that remediation sources subject to the rule emit these
pollutants. In the EPA's development of the risk modeling emissions
data, we found six facilities with emissions data in the NEI that were
labeled under the SCC as being from a site remediation. None of these
facilities reported inorganic HAP emissions or metal emissions. The EPA
is, therefore, proposing no action at this time to set standards for
inorganic HAP and metals in the absence of data indicating such
emissions occur at affected facilities. The EPA is requesting data
demonstrating whether or not any affected site remediation sources emit
inorganic HAP or metals (Comment C-5).
2. SSM
a. Background
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding that under
section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that a section 112 standard apply at all times.
[[Page 46162]]
We are proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Site
Remediation NESHAP. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are
proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also
proposing several revisions to Table 3 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example,
we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also
are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described below.
The EPA has attempted to eliminate provisions that are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption in this proposal. We are specifically seeking comment on
whether we have successfully done so (Comment C-6).
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
Based on the types of site remediation processes and equipment for
this source category, the EPA has assumed that emissions during periods
of startup and shutdown are the same as or lower than during normal
operations. As it is possible to stop processing remediation material
until any control devices are fully operating and able to effectively
control emissions, the EPA has determined that separate standards for
periods of startup and shutdown are not necessary and are not being
proposed. We solicit comment on this conclusion regarding periods of
startup and shutdown at site remediation facilities (Comment C-7).
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner. . .'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best
controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the EPA to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of sources'' says nothing about how the performance of the best
units is to be calculated. Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA,
734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112
requires the EPA to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A
malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting standards based on ``best performers.''
Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emissions standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of
imperfect scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources
to conduct the perfect study.'' '') (internal quotation omitted). See
also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In
the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, the goal of a ``best controlled or best performing source''
is to operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of the source and
accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are
significantly less stringent than levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation
of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction). Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard, the
source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action, and
the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions.
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative
penalties are appropriate.
In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative defense
to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in an effort
to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that
there is a tension, inherent in many types of air regulations, to
ensure adequate compliance, while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be
violated under circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source.
Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement
discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it
included the affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach
and more regulatory clarity. Compare Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-
case enforcement discretion approach is adequate) with Marathon Oil Co.
v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more
formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets beyond the control of
the permit holder.''). Under
[[Page 46163]]
the EPA's regulatory affirmative defense provisions, if a source could
demonstrate in a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met
the requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil
penalties would not be assessed. In 2014, the Court vacated such an
affirmative defense in one of the EPA's CAA section 112(d) regulations.
NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacating affirmative
defense provisions in a CAA section 112(d) rule establishing emission
standards for Portland cement kilns). The Court found that the EPA
lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense for private civil
suits and held that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil
penalty amounts lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA.
Specifically, the Court found, ``As the language of the statute makes
clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil
penalties are `appropriate.' '' 749 F.3d at 1063; see also Id.
(``[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are `appropriate'
in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.''). In
light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative
defense provision in this proposed rule. As explained above, if a
source is unable to comply with emissions standards as a result of a
malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to
provide flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the Court recognized,
in an EPA or citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion
to consider any defense raised and determine whether penalties are
appropriate. See Id. at 1064 (noting arguments that violation were
caused by unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in
future civil cases when the issue arises). The same logic applies to
EPA administrative enforcement actions.
b. Specific SSM-Related Proposed Changes
To address the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, we
are proposing revisions and additions to certain provisions of the Site
Remediation NESHAP. As described in detail below, we are proposing to
revise the General Provisions applicability table (Table 3 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGGG) in several of the references related to
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We are also proposing
revisions related to the following provisions of the Site Remediation
NESHAP: (1) The general duty to minimize emissions at all times; (2)
the requirement for sources to comply with the emission limits in the
rule at all times; (3) performance testing conditions requirements; (4)
excused monitoring excursions provisions; and (5) malfunction
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(1.) General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by adding rows specifically for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), and 63.6(e)(1)(iii), and to include a
``no'' in the applicability column for the 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) entry.
Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions.
Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or
appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are
proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.7935(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR
63.7935(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to include a ``no'' in the applicability
column for the newly added entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the
elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty
requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.7935(b).
The provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) still apply, and we are
keeping the ``yes'' in the applicability column for that section. For
40 CFR 63.6(e)(2), we are proposing to include a ``no'' in the
applicability column for that section because it is a reserved section
in the General Provisions.
(2.) SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' to ``no'' in the
applicability column. Generally, this paragraph requires development of
an SSM plan and specifies SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As previously noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
(3.) Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the
applicability column to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some CAA section 112 standard apply at all times. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to
apply at all times.
(4.) Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the
applicability column to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes
performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.7941(b)(2). The
performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from
the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several
respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption. However, consistent with 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should
be based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on
normal operating conditions) of the affected source. The EPA is
proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the
condition of the performance test'' upon request but does not
specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record and report the
information.
[[Page 46164]]
(5.) Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in
the applicability column to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not
necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require
good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set
out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring
equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
(6.) Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iv) by adding separate entries for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii) and 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) and
changing the ``yes'' in the applicability column to a ``no'' for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii) and 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v). Section 63.10(b)(2)(i)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown.
These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is
proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal
operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of
special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA
is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.7952(a)(2). The
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions require the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.7952(a)(2) a requirement that sources keep records that include a
list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize
emissions, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard. Section 63.10(b)(2)(iv)
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.7952(a)(2). Section
63.10(b)(2)(v) requires sources to record actions taken during SSM
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required.
(7.) Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in the
applicability column to ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the
reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To
replace the General Provisions reporting requirements, the EPA is
proposing to add electronic reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.7951(c). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semi-annual summary report
already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must
contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required.
3. Electronic Reporting
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of site remediation facilities submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semi-annual compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \25\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of
[[Page 46165]]
the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT
at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated
through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For semi-annual summary compliance reports, the proposed rule
requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\26\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See
40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_GGGGG_Site_Remediation_Spreadsheet_Template_Dr
aft.xlsm, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7951(e). The
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure
event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR63.7951(e). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \27\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \28\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\29\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\28\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\29\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
The Site Remediation NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.7920(b) requires an owner
or operator to control emissions from equipment leaks according to the
requirements of either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU. For open-ended valves and lines, both subpart TT in 40 CFR
63.1014(b)(1) and subpart UU in 40 CFR 63.1033(b)(1) require that the
open end be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve
that shall ``seal the open end.'' However, ``seal'' is not defined in
either subpart, leading to uncertainty for the owner or operator as to
whether compliance is being achieved. Inspections under the EPA's Air
Toxics LDAR initiative have provided evidence that while certain open-
ended lines may be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second
valve, these are not providing a ``seal'' as the EPA interprets the
term.\30\ In response to this uncertainty, we are proposing to amend 40
CFR 63.7920(b) to clarify what ``seal the open end'' means for open-
ended valves and lines. This proposed clarification explains that for
the purpose of complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1014(b)(1)
(subpart TT), and 40 CFR 63.1033(b)(1) (subpart UU), open-ended valves
and lines are ``sealed'' by the cap, blind flange, plug, or second
valve if instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or line
conducted according to EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Region V OEL Data for VV Rulemaking, available in the
docket for this action, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, 40 CFR 63.1014(c) of subpart TT and 40 CFR 63.1033(c)
of subpart UU exempt open-ended valves and lines that are in an
emergency shutdown system, and which are designed to open
automatically, from the requirements to be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or second valve that seals the open end. We are proposing
that these open-ended valves and lines follow the requirements of 40
CFR 63.7920(b)(3)(ii) for bypass devices that could be used to divert a
vent stream from the closed-vent system to the atmosphere, which would
require that each such open-ended line be equipped with either a flow
indicator or a seal or locking device. We are also proposing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.7951(g)(3) and 40
CFR 63.7952(a)(2)(v)(B) for these open-ended values and lines.
We solicit comments on our proposed approach to reducing the
compliance uncertainty associated with ``sealed'' open-ended valves and
lines and our proposed requirements for open-ended valves and lines
that are in an emergency shutdown system and are designed to open
automatically (Comment C-8).
5. Technical Corrections
In this rulemaking, we are proposing four technical corrections to
improve the clarity of the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements.
First, the original Site Remediation NESHAP, promulgated in October
2003 (68 FR 58172), incorporated two voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) by reference, as specified in 40 CFR 63.14. However, while the
paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.14 for these three VCS include references to
the NESHAP for which they are approved to be used, these references
omit citations to 40 CFR 63, subpart GGGGG. In 40 CFR 63.14, we
[[Page 46166]]
are adding citations to 40 CFR 63.7944 for the two following consensus
standards: American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 2517,
Evaporative Loss From External Floating-Roof Tanks, and American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D2879-83.
Second, we are correcting a citation reference to 40 CFR 63.7(3) in
40 CFR 63.7942. The correct citation is to 40 CFR 63.7(a)(3).
Third, we are correcting a citation reference to 40 CFR
63.7890(a)(1)(i) in 40 CFR 63.7941. The correct citation is to 40 CFR
63.7890(b).
Fourth, we are correcting several citation references to 40 CFR
63.7990 in 40 CFR 63.7901(a), 40 CFR 63.7901(b)(1), and 40 CFR
63.7903(a) and (b). The correct citations are to 40 CFR 63.7900.
G. What compliance dates are we proposing?
Under CAA section 112(d), the proposed compliance date for new and
existing affected sources for the revised SSM requirements, electronic
reporting requirements, the operating and pressure release management
requirements for PRDs, and the revised requirements regarding bypasses
and closure devices on pressure tanks is the effective date of the
final amendments. We are proposing this compliance date because
available information indicates these new and revised requirements
should be immediately implementable by the facilities.
We are proposing that for existing affected sources subject to the
Site Remediation MACT standards, the compliance date for the PRD
pressure release actuation event reporting requirements is 1 year from
the effective date of the final amendments. This time is needed
regardless of whether an owner or operator of a facility chooses to
comply with the PRD pressure release actuation event reporting
provisions by installing PRD release indicator systems, employing
parameter monitoring, routing releases to a control device, or choosing
another compliance option as permitted under the proposed provisions.
This time period will allow site remediation facility owners and
operators to research equipment and vendors, and to purchase, install,
test, and properly operate any necessary equipment by the compliance
date. For new affected sources, the proposed compliance date for PRD
pressure release actuation event reporting requirements is the
effective date of the final amendments.
Finally, we are proposing revised requirements for equipment leaks
under CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA generally understands the steps
needed for site remediation facilities to comply with the proposed
standards for equipment leaks, and believes 1 year represents a
reasonable amount of time it will take these facilities to take these
steps. Therefore, we are proposing that a one-year compliance period
from the date of promulgation is necessary for the revised equipment
leak requirements to allow existing affected sources that are currently
complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, adequate time to modify
their existing LDAR programs to comply with the revised standards for
pumps and valves. For new affected sources, the proposed compliance
date for the equipment leak standards is the effective date of the
final amendments.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that there are approximately 63 major source site
remediation facilities. Based on available permit information, 33
facilities are expected to be subject to a limited set of the rule
requirements under 40 CFR 63.7881(c)(1) due to the low annual quantity
of HAP contained in the remediation material excavated, extracted,
pumped, or otherwise removed during the site remediations conducted at
the facilities. These facilities are only required to prepare and
maintain written documentation to support the determination that the
total annual quantity of the HAP contained in the remediation material
excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed at the facility is
less than 1 megagram per year. They are not subject to any other
emissions limits, work practices, monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements. While new site remediations are likely to
be conducted in the future, we are currently not aware of any specific
new site remediation facilities that are expected to be constructed.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
For equipment leaks, we are proposing to revise the equipment leak
thresholds for pumps and valves for facilities complying with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT. We estimate the HAP emission reduction for this
change to be approximately 4.7 tpy. We do not anticipate any HAP
emission reduction from our proposed clarification of the rule
provision ``seal the open end'' (in the context of open-ended valves
and lines) or the requirement to electronically report the results of
emissions testing. For the proposed revisions to the MACT standards
regarding SSM, including monitoring of PRDs in remediation material
service, we were not able to quantify the possible emission reductions,
so none are included in our assessment of air quality impacts.
Therefore, the estimated total HAP emission reductions for the
proposed rule revisions for the Site Remediation source category are
estimated to be 4.7 tpy.
C. What are the cost impacts?
For equipment leaks, we are proposing to revise the equipment leak
thresholds for pumps and valves for facilities complying with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be
$26,000 and the annual costs to be $10,000.
We do not anticipate any quantifiable capital or annual costs for
our proposed requirements to electronically report the results of
emissions testing, or the requirements to monitor PRDs. For PRDs, we
are also proposing to require facilities to conduct analyses of the
causes of PRD pressure release actuation events and to implement of
corrective measures. We estimate the nationwide annualized costs for
the analysis of actuation events to be $13,000. This cost represents
the estimated labor hours we anticipate would be required to determine
the cause of a typical actuation event and to implement any corrective
measure suggested by the analysis of the cause. We estimate an increase
in reporting and recordkeeping associated with the proposed
requirements for equipment leaks and PRDs of approximately $7,000 per
year nationwide. Therefore, the total capital costs for the proposed
standards for the Site Remediation source category are approximately
$26,000, and the total annualized costs are approximately $30,000.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a proposed rule. The total capital costs associated with
this proposed rule are estimated to be approximately $26,000, and the
estimated annualized cost is approximately $30,000. We expect these
costs to be borne by 30 facilities, with
[[Page 46167]]
an estimated annualized cost of approximately $1,000 per facility per
year. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or
absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
We have estimated that this action will achieve HAP emissions
reductions of 4.7 tpy. The proposed standards will result in reductions
in the actual and MACT-allowable emissions of HAP and may reduce the
actual and potential cancer risks and noncancer health effects due to
emissions of HAP from this source category, as discussed in section
IV.B.2 of this preamble. We have not quantified the monetary benefits
associated with these reductions; however, these avoided emissions will
result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health
effects associated with exposure to air pollution of these emissions.
VI. Request for Comment
A. Request for Comment Regarding CERCLA/RCRA Exempt Sources
1. Introduction
The EPA is using this RTR proposal separately to solicit comment on
ways in which the Site Remediation NESHAP could be amended with respect
to facilities currently exempt under 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3),
under a scenario where the EPA removes the exemption. The exemption
applies to facilities subject to federally-enforceable oversight under
the CERCLA or the RCRA. In particular, in light of comments received on
our 2016 proposal to remove the exemption, the Agency seeks additional
comment regarding subcategorization or other methods of distinguishing
among appropriate requirements for such sources, as well as whether the
issues raised by commenters may be applicable more generally for all
affected facilities in this source category. The EPA is seeking comment
on how, if the exemption was removed, these formerly exempt sources
would be able to implement the Site Remediation NESHAP effectively and
efficiently while meeting the requirements of RCRA, CERCLA, and the
CAA. We seek comment on how this could be reflected in the
applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance
demonstration requirements. The EPA seeks comment on how to efficiently
implement the rule for cleanups conducted under CERCLA or RCRA
authority. For example, this could include look-up tables for commonly
used remediation alternatives and associated BACT and LAER compliant
technologies that would minimize emissions to be consistent with the
rule. We are seeking ideas on what tools or metrics could be developed
that would aid to streamline the implementation of the regulation on a
site-specific basis.
It is not the EPA's intention to take final action with respect to
the exemption in this action, but to use this opportunity to gather
additional information in anticipation of addressing these issues
through a separate action (Comment C-9).
2. Background
Section 112(c)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to publish and regularly
update (at least every 8 years) ``a list of all categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources (listed under paragraph
(3)) of the air pollutants listed pursuant to subsection (b).'' In
1992, the EPA included site remediation on the initial CAA 112(c)(1)
source category list and defined the source category to include the
cleanup of sites that possess contaminated media, including National
Priorities List sites and Corrective Action sites. See the EPA, July
1992 Final Report. The listing assumed that remediation cleanups
conducted under specific cleanup authorities could be major sources.
Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA states that the EPA ``shall establish
emissions standards under [section 112(d)]'' for the categories and
subcategories the Administrator lists. The D.C. Circuit has described
this as a mandatory obligation. See, e.g., NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d. 1364,
1368 (2007).
3. Promulgation of Rule and Petition for Reconsideration
In 2003, the EPA promulgated a final rule under CAA section 112
which established MACT standards for HAP emissions at major sources
where remediation technologies and practices are used to clean up
contaminated media (e.g., soils, groundwater, or surface water) or
certain stored or disposed materials (68 FR 58172, October 8, 2003).
The rule exempted from the MACT standard remediations performed under
federal oversight pursuant to CERCLA or the RCRA corrective action
program, on the basis that such regulated cleanups provided the
``functional equivalent'' of the MACT standards. Id. at 58176.
The EPA stated that CERCLA Superfund and RCRA corrective action
programs provide an ``appropriate and effective regulatory approach''
to address air emissions, because these statutes require consideration
of the same HAP emissions and include a public input process. Id. at
58183. EPA noted the RCRA corrective action and CERCLA Superfund
assessment and clean-up processes are already subject to federal
regulatory oversight; further, remediation actions are designed and
managed based on site-specific conditions; and, they include public
participation mechanisms. Id. Note that the EPA did not extend the RCRA
and CERCLA exemption to sites handled under state and voluntary cleanup
programs, brownfields cleanups, and other types of site remediation
that are not subject to the oversight provided for RCRA corrective
action or CERCLA Superfund actions, see Id. at 58183-84. The EPA
concluded that imposing the NESHAP requirements on remediations already
overseen pursuant to CERCLA or RCRA would have limited impact and could
add administrative burden to the remediation process under those
programs for little or no environmental benefit. Id.
The Sierra Club filed a petition for judicial review of the rule in
the Court as well as an administrative petition for reconsideration
under the CAA on two issues in the final rule, one of which was the
exemption for CERCLA and RCRA sites. The other issue raised by
petitioners concerned control of heavy metals and other inorganic HAP
from this source category. This issue is addressed in section IV.E.1 of
this preamble. The petition for reconsideration stated that the public
did not have an opportunity to comment specifically on the EPA's
``functional equivalent'' argument because the EPA raised it for the
first time in the final rule preamble. Petitioners further stated that
there is no CAA authority to exempt these sources, and CAA section
112(c) and (d) require that the EPA establish MACT standards for them.
Petitioners asserted that CERCLA and RCRA applicable requirements are
not the functional equivalent of the MACT standards for this source
category, and that the EPA had not demonstrated that they are.
In January 2004, the Court granted a joint motion to hold the case
in abeyance so the parties could discuss possible settlement.
Settlement discussions were ultimately unsuccessful. In October 2014,
the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be
administratively terminated. The EPA and Sierra Club filed a joint
response stating that the parties were exploring a new approach to
settlement. In March 2015, the EPA granted reconsideration on the
issues raised in the petition via letter.
[[Page 46168]]
In May 2016, the EPA proposed to remove the exemption from the Site
Remediation MACT rule for CERCLA Superfund and RCRA corrective action
sites (81 FR 29821 May 13, 2016). The EPA has not taken final action on
the proposed rule, and the EPA now is seeking further comment and
information relating to this issue.
4. 2016 Proposal on Reconsideration
On May 13, 2016, the EPA proposed to amend the Site Remediation
NESHAP by removing exemptions from the rule for site remediation
activities performed under federally-enforceable oversight authority of
CERCLA or RCRA. 81 FR 29821.The EPA also proposed removing the
applicability requirement that site remediations be co-located with at
least one other stationary source regulated by another NESHAP. The EPA
has not taken final action on that proposal and is not proposing to do
so in this notice. However, in conjunction with this proposal for the
RTR, the EPA is seeking additional comment and information related to
the EPA's previous proposal to remove the exemptions for remediations
under RCRA and CERCLA programs. The EPA is not seeking further comment
on the proposal to remove the applicability requirement that site
remediations be co-located with at least one other stationary source
regulated by another NESHAP.
In response to our 2016 proposal, the EPA received comments both in
support of and in opposition to our proposal to remove the exemption
provisions. The EPA has reviewed the comments received in response to
our 2016 proposal and does not believe it has sufficient information to
proceed with a final rule at this time. The comments received in
opposition to the proposal to remove the exemptions suggested that the
proposal to remove the RCRA and CERCLA exemptions alone, without
further consideration of modification of other provisions, may apply
the NESHAP to sources that we did not intend to regulate, or apply the
NESHAP in a way that compliance is impractical given the nature of the
remediation effort facing the source.
These comments, briefly summarized below (and available in the
proposal docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021), have led the EPA to determine
that additional information and comment are appropriate before taking
further action. The EPA is not proposing any regulatory action on
removing the RCRA and CERCLA exemptions in this RTR proposal. Rather,
the EPA is using this proposal as an opportune time to solicit further
information and data in response to the comments on our prior proposal.
The comments and information we receive with respect to the exemptions
will be added to the information available for a subsequent rulemaking
after the EPA has finalized the RTR.
5. Discussion and Request for Comment
The 2016 proposal to eliminate the exemption included no other
changes to the rule, although the proposal would have the effect of
applying the rule to approximately 125 facilities at which a site
remediation is conducted, an inclusion that would, in turn, cover an
even greater number of operable units. The EPA received comments from
facilities from across the spectrum of exempt sources likely to be
subject to the rule after removing the exemptions. This broad range of
sources and their diversity indicate that the EPA should consider sub-
categorization or other methods of differentiating among sources under
the Site Remediation NESHAP.
Under CAA section 112(c), the EPA may establish subcategories based
on size, type, or class of affected source, such that standards
applicable to each subcategory achieve reductions required by the CAA,
but in a manner appropriate to that subgroup of sources. In general,
the EPA has established subcategories based on the material inputs or
the nature of the products being produced which in turn inform the
nature of the requirements that apply. In other cases, the EPA created
subcategories for different process equipment that required air
pollution control of fundamentally different operating parameters and
mechanisms, and which, in turn, required monitoring or testing of
different types to demonstrate compliance.
The EPA understands the comments on the May 2016 proposal to
indicate that the EPA should consider subcategorizing or
differentiating among remediations in some way. While the Site
Remediation NESHAP already reflects certain differences in remedial
actions, in commenters' view, there are other considerations that
warrant further consideration of how the rule is structured.
Commenters described the site remediation in ways that suggested
that applying the Site Remediation NESHAP is unlike applying other
NESHAP. For example, when a typical major source is constructed, the
owner-operator is fully aware of the processes they will perform, the
equipment that will be needed, and the techniques and practices that
will be employed to comply with applicable standards. If a source is
not able to determine applicability based on their own comparison of
potentially applicable standards and their industrial processes, the
facility can request an applicability determination from the EPA.
In contrast, an entity that is initiating a site remediation must
contend with a level of uncertainty and incomplete information about
the remediation that eventually will occur. These differences have a
material impact on the way sources determine applicability and
implement specific provisions of the Site Remediation NESHAP. For
example, 40 CFR 63.7886(c)(1) has provisions that require that a source
conduct a site investigation to substantiate specific subsurface
quantities of pollutants to be remediated, to determine whether a given
remediation will be subject to the rule.
To make this determination, the extent of contamination must be
estimated, but these quantities may not be known until a future (and
often extended) period for a single operable unit. This is further
complicated when a facility consists of many individual operable units
dispersed over hundreds of acres. A facility with a series of operable
units that will be in remediation in sequence is not required to know
the pollutant quantities at all operable units at the outset of the
first remediation, unless the facility is compelled to make an
applicability determination under the Site Remediation NESHAP. When
remediating a series of operable units, the remediation activity across
units may not be active at the same time or may be intermittent or
discontinued after a couple of months or years. This makes an
applicability determination for a potentially affected source a greater
hurdle than the EPA may have considered.
The EPA recognizes that the diversity of sites already subject to
the NESHAP is a characteristic of the Site Remediation source category
as a whole. However, we understand commenters' view to be that the size
of the cleanup, and the typically greater scale, complexity, and
diversity of remediation issues at sites that fall under the current
RCRA and CERCLA exemption render the considerations discussed above
particularly significant in establishing appropriate NESHAP
requirements for such sites.
Another consideration highlighted by commenters for these typically
large and complex remediation sites is that remediation is driven by
the requirements of the RCRA and CERCLA programs, not by compliance
with a NESHAP. For some affected sources, according to commenters,
compliance
[[Page 46169]]
with certain requirements of the rule may have a negative impact on the
execution of remediation conducted in compliance with RCRA and CERCLA.
For example, RCRA and CERCLA cleanups may be ongoing at the time that
the remediation becomes subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP. While
the EPA has some flexibility in the applicability date of the NESHAP,
commenters pointed out that the EPA provided no regulatory language to
guide a facility to show whether or how the facility's adherence to
corrective action requirements and approved remediation plans under
RCRA and CERCLA demonstrate initial or continuing compliance with the
Site Remediation NESHAP standards to allow a remediation to proceed.
The EPA will take these comments under advisement, to be acted upon
at a later date. The EPA will proceed with the RTR notice and comment
rulemaking to complete this requirement under CAA section 112 by the
deadline. Please see sections IV.B and IV.D of this preamble, and
technical support documents supplied in the docket, for how the EPA has
evaluated exempt sources with respect to both the risk and technology
reviews.
B. Request for Comment on All Aspects of the Risk and Technology Review
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2062.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Respondents/affected entities: Unlike a specific industry sector or
type of business, the respondents potentially affected by this ICR
cannot be easily or definitively identified. Potentially, the Site
Remediation rule may be applicable to any type of business or facility
at which a site remediation is conducted to clean up media contaminated
with organic HAP when the remediation activities are performed, the
authority under which the remediation activities are performed, and the
magnitude of the HAP in the remediation material meets the
applicability criteria specified in the rule. A site remediation that
is subject to this rule potentially may be conducted at any type of
privately-owned or government-owned facility at which contamination has
occurred due to past events or current activities at the facility. For
site remediation performed at sites where the facility has been
abandoned and there is no owner, a government agency takes
responsibility for the cleanup.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
Estimated number of respondents: 30 total for the source category.
These facilities are already respondents and no facilities are expected
to become respondents as a result of this proposed action.
Frequency of response: Semiannual.
Total estimated burden: 19,700 total hours (per year) for the
source category, of which 310 hours are estimated as a result of this
proposed action. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The total estimated cost of the rule is $1.39
million (per year) for the source category. This includes $126,000
total annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. We
estimate that $36,000 of the $126,000 in total annualized capital or
operation and
[[Page 46170]]
maintenance costs is a result of this proposed action. Recordkeeping
and reporting costs of approximately $7,000 estimated as a result of
this action are included in the $1.39 million in total costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 3, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are chemical
and refining companies. The Agency has determined that two small
entities, representing approximately 7 percent of the total number of
entities subject to the proposal, may experience an impact of less than
0.1 percent of revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833).
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector.
F. Executive Oder 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no
site remediation facilities that are owned or operated by tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. Because the proposed rule amendments would result in reduced
emissions of HAP and reduced risk to anyone exposed, the EPA believes
that the proposed rule amendments would provide additional protection
to children. More information on the source category's risk can be
found in section IV of this preamble. The complete risk analysis
results and the details concerning its development are presented in the
memorandum entitled Residual Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0833).
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HAP
emitted by site remediation facilities.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA is formalizing
the incorporation of two technical standards that were included in the
October 2003 rule for which the EPA had previously not formally
requested the Office of the Federal Register to include in 40 CFR 63.14
with a reference back to the sections in 40 CFR 63, subpart GGGGG.
These two standards were already incorporated in 40 CFR 63.14 and were
formally requested for other rules. These standards are API Publication
2517, ``Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks,'' Third
Edition, February 1989, and ASTM D2879-83, ``Standard Method for Vapor
Pressure- Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope.'' The API Publication 2517 is
used to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids
stored at ambient temperature and is available to the public for free
viewing online in the Read Online Documents section on API's website at
https://publications.api.org. In addition to this free online viewing
availability on API's website, hard copies and printable versions are
available for purchase from API. The ASTM D2879-83 method is also used
to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids stored
at ambient temperature, and it is available to the public for free
viewing online in the Reading Room section on ASTM's website at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. Hardcopies and printable versions are
also available for purchase from ASTM. Additional information can be
found at https://www.api.org/and https://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-andpublications.html.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
because it increases the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
To gain a better understanding of the source category and near
source populations, the EPA conducted a demographic analysis for site
remediation facilities to identify any overrepresentation of minority,
low income, or indigenous populations with cancer risks above 1-in-1
million. This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of
sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources;
it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most
[[Page 46171]]
highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the
level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. More
information on the source category's risk can be found in section IV of
this preamble. The complete demographic analysis results and the
details concerning its development are presented in the memorandum
titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Site Remediation Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0833).
For the Site Remediation source category, the demographic analysis
revealed that for some demographic categories, the percentage of people
with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is above
their corresponding national averages of the amount of people in that
demographic category. These demographic categories are ``African
American,'' ``Above Poverty Level,'' and ``Over 25 and With a High
School Diploma.'' The ratio of African Americans with a cancer risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to site remediation is 17
percent higher than the national average percentage of people in that
demographic category (14 percent versus 12 percent); the ratio of
people living above the poverty line with a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million due to site remediation is 1 percent higher
than the national average percentage of people in that demographic
category (87 percent versus 86 percent); and the ratio of people over
age 25 with a high school diploma with a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million due to site remediation is 3 percent higher
than the national average percentage of people in that demographic
category (89 percent versus 86 percent). However, as noted previously,
risks from this source category were found to be acceptable for all
populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (h)(31)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-
Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406 and 63.7944.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(31) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406,
63.7944, and 63.12005.
* * * * *
Subpart GGGGG--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Site Remediation
0
3. Section 63.7883 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text, (c) introductory text, and (d) introductory text,
and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7883 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later
than October 9, 2006, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(b) If you have a new affected source that manages remediation
material other than a radioactive mixed waste as defined in Sec.
63.7957, then you must meet the compliance date specified in paragraph
(b)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable to your affected source,
except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) If you have a new affected source that manages remediation
material that is a radioactive mixed waste as defined in Sec. 63.7957,
then you must meet the compliance date specified in paragraph (c)(1) or
(2) of this section, as applicable to your affected source, except as
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) If your facility is an area source that increases its emissions
or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP as
defined in Sec. 63.2, then you must meet the compliance dates
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, except as
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Sources must comply with the equipment leak requirements of
Sec. 63.7920(b)(3) and (4) and the pressure relief device requirements
of Sec. 63.7920(d) and (e) as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) If the affected source's initial startup date is before [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must
comply with the equipment leak requirements of Sec. 63.7920(b)(3) and
(4) and the pressure relief device requirements of Sec. 63.7920(d) and
(e) of this subpart on or before [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(2) If the affected source's initial startup date is on or after
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you
must comply with the equipment leak requirements of Sec. 63.7920(b)(3)
and (4) and the pressure relief device requirements of Sec. 63.7920(d)
and (e) of this subpart upon initial startup.
0
4. Section 63.7895 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7895 What emissions limitations and work practice standards
must I meet for tanks?
* * * * *
(c) If you use Tank Level 1 controls, you must install and operate
a fixed roof according to the requirements in Sec. 63.902, with the
exceptions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. As
an alternative to using this fixed roof, you may choose to use one of
Tank Level 2 controls in paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) Where Sec. 63.902(c)(2) provides an exception for a spring-
loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type
of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere, only a
conservation vent is eligible for the exception for the purposes of
this subpart.
(2) The provisions of Sec. 63.902(c)(3) do not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.7896 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) and
(f)(1) to read as follows:
[[Page 46172]]
Sec. 63.7896 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for tanks?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Each tank using Tank Level 1 controls is equipped with a fixed
roof and closure devices according to the requirements in Sec.
63.902(b) and (c), with the exceptions specified in Sec. 63.7895(c)(1)
and (2), and you have records documenting the design.
* * * * *
(3) You will operate the fixed roof and closure devices according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.902, with the exceptions specified in
Sec. 63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Each tank is equipped with a fixed roof and closure devices
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.685(g), with the exceptions
specified in Sec. 63.7895(c)(1) and (2), and you have records
documenting the design.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.7898 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7898 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for tanks?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the fixed roof and closure devices
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.902(c), with the exceptions
specified in Sec. 63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.7900 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
introductory text, (c), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7900 What emissions limitations and work practice standards
must I meet for containers?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) If the design capacity of your container is less than or equal
to 0.46 m\3\, then you must use controls according to the standards for
Container Level 1 controls as specified in Sec. 63.922, except that
Sec. 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this
subpart. As an alternative, you may choose to use controls according to
either of the standards for Container Level 2 controls as specified in
Sec. 63.923.
(2) If the design capacity of your container is greater than 0.46
m\3\, then you must use controls according to the standards for
Container Level 2 controls as specified in Sec. 63.923, except that
Sec. 63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this
subpart and except as provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(3) As an alternative to meeting the standards in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section for containers with a capacity greater than 0.46 m\3\,
if you determine that either of the conditions in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
or (ii) apply to the remediation material placed in your container,
then you may use controls according to the standards for Container
Level 1 controls as specified in Sec. 63.922, except that Sec.
63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) At times when a container having a design capacity greater than
0.1 m\3\ is used for treatment of a remediation material by a waste
stabilization process as defined in Sec. 63.7957, you must control air
emissions from the container during the process whenever the
remediation material in the container is exposed to the atmosphere
according to the standards for Container Level 3 controls as specified
in Sec. 63.924, except that Sec. 63.924(d) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet the emissions limitations and
work practice standards in Sec. 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent
system and control device.
(d) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph (b)
of this section, you may choose to use controls on your container
according to the standards for Container Level 3 controls as specified
in Sec. 63.924, except that Sec. 63.924(d) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet the emissions limitations and
work practice standards in Sec. 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent
system and control device.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.7901 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
(c)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7901 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for containers?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards in Sec. 63.7900 that apply to
your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this section, as applicable to your containers.
(b) * * *
(1) You have determined the applicable container control levels
specified in Sec. 63.7900 for the containers to be used for your site
remediation.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate each container cover and closure device
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.922(d), except that Sec.
63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(d) * * *
(3) You will operate and maintain the container covers and closure
devices according to the requirements in Sec. 63.923(d), except that
Sec. 63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.7903 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text, (c)(1), and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7903 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for containers?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations and work practice standards in Sec. 63.7900 applicable to
your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this section.
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirement
to determine the applicable container control level specified in Sec.
63.7900(b) for each affected tank by meeting the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining covers for each container according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.922(d), except that Sec. 63.922(d)(4)
and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Operating and maintaining container covers according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.923(d), except that Sec. 63.923(d)(4) and (5)
do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.7905 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7905 What emissions limitations or work practice standards
must I meet for surface impoundments?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Install and operate a floating membrane cover according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.942, except that Sec. 63.942(c)(2) and (3) do
not apply for the purposes of this subpart; or
(2) Install and operate a cover vented through a closed vent system
to a control device according to the requirements in Sec. 63.943,
except that
[[Page 46173]]
Sec. 63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart. You
must meet the emissions limitations and work practice standards in
Sec. 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and control device.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.7906 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7906 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations or work practice standards for surface
impoundments?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) You will operate the cover and closure devices according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.942(c), except that Sec. 63.942(c)(2) and (3)
do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate the cover and closure devices according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.943(c), except that Sec. 63.943(c)(2) does
not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.7908 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7908 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for surface
impoundments?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the floating membrane cover and
closure devices according to the requirements in Sec. 63.942(c),
except that Sec. 63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the cover and its closure devices
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.943(c), except that Sec.
63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.7910 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7910 What emissions limitations and work practice standards
must I meet for separators?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Install and operate a floating roof according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.1043, except that Sec. 63.1043(c)(2) does not
apply for the purposes of this subpart. For portions of the separator
where it is infeasible to install and operate a floating roof, such as
over a weir mechanism, you must comply with the requirements specified
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Install and operate a fixed roof vented through a closed vent
system to a control device according to the requirements in Sec.
63.1044, except that Sec. 63.1044(c)(2) does not apply for the
purposes of this subpart. You must meet the emissions limitations and
work practice standards in Sec. 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent
system and control device.
(3) Install and operate a pressurized separator according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.1045 except that Sec. 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does
not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.7911 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2),
and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7911 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for separators?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) You will operate the floating roof and closure devices
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1043(c), except that Sec.
63.1043(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate the fixed roof and its closure devices
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1042(c), except that Sec.
63.1042(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) You will operate the pressurized separator as a closed system
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1045(b)(3), except that Sec.
63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
0
15. Section 63.7912 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7912 What are my inspection and monitoring requirements for
separators?
* * * * *
(c) If you use a pressurized separator that operates as a closed
system according to Sec. 63.7910(b)(3), you must visually inspect each
pressurized separator and closure devices for defects at least annually
to ensure they are operating according to the design requirements in
Sec. 63.1045(b), except that Sec. 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
0
16. Section 63.7913 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7913 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards for separators?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the fixed roof and its closure
devices according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1042, except that
Sec. 63.1042(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Operating the pressurized separator at all times according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.1045, except that Sec. 63.1045(b)(3)(i)
does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
17. Revise the undesignated center heading for Sec. Sec. 63.7920
through 63.7922 to read as follows:
Equipment Leaks and Pressure Relief Devices
0
18. Section 63.7920 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (f); and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d) and paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7920 What emissions limitations and work practice standards
must I meet for equipment leaks?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Control equipment leaks according to all applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT--National Emission
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1, with the differences
noted in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section for the purposes of
this subpart; or
(2) Control equipment leaks according to all applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU--National Emission
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2, with the differences
noted in paragraphs (b)(3) of this section for the purposes of this
subpart
(3)(i) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Sec.
63.1014(b)(1) or Sec. 63.1033(b)(1), the open end is sealed when
instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or line conducted
according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no
readings of 500 ppm or greater.
(ii) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Sec.
63.1014(c) or Sec. 63.1033(c), open-ended valves or lines in an
emergency shutdown system which are designed to open automatically in
the event of a process
[[Page 46174]]
upset and that are exempt from the requirements in Sec. 63.1014(b) or
Sec. 63.1033(b) must comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.693(c)(2).
(4)(i) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Sec.
63.1006(b)(2), the instrument reading that defines a leak is 500 parts
per million or greater.
(ii) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Sec.
63.1007(b)(2), the instrument reading that defines a leak is 5,000
parts per million or greater for pumps handling polymerizing monomers;
2,000 parts per million or greater for pumps in food/medical service;
and 1,000 parts per million or greater for all other pumps.
* * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this subpart, the requirements of Sec.
63.7920(e) of this subpart apply rather than those of Sec. 63.1030 or
of Sec. 63.1011, as applicable, for pressure relief devices in gas and
vapor service. The requirements of Sec. 63.7920(e) of this subpart
apply rather than those of Sec. 63.1029 or of Sec. 63.1010, as
applicable, for pressure relief devices in liquid service.
(e) Operate each pressure relief device under normal operating
conditions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above the background level as detected by the method specified in Sec.
63.1004(b) or Sec. 63.1023(b), as applicable.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 63.7923 is added before the center heading ``Closed Vent
Systems and Control Devices'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7923 What emissions limitations must I meet for pressure
relief devices?
(a) For each pressure relief device in remediation material
service, you must comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section following a pressure release actuation event, as applicable.
(1) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, return the pressure relief device to the normal operating
conditions specified in Sec. 63.7920(e) as soon as practicable and
conduct instrument monitoring by the method specified in Sec.
63.1004(b) or Sec. 63.1023(b), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar
days after the pressure release device returns to remediation material
service following a pressure release actuation event, except as
provided in Sec. 63.1024(d) or of Sec. 63.1005(c), as applicable.
(2) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture
disk, except as provided in Sec. 63.1024(d) or of Sec. 63.1005(c), as
applicable, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable but no
later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release actuation event.
(b) You must equip each pressure relief device in remediation
material service with a device(s) or use a monitoring system sufficient
to indicate a pressure release to the atmosphere. The device or
monitoring system may be either specific to the pressure release device
itself or may be associated with the process system or piping. Examples
of these types of devices or monitoring systems include, but are not
limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion detector
on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, pressure monitor, or
parametric monitoring system. The device(s) or monitoring systems must
be capable of meeting the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Identifying the pressure release;
(2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
(3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is
occurring.
(c) If any pressure relief device in remediation material service
releases directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release
actuation event, follow the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through
(6) of this section.
(1) You must calculate the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of
this subpart released during each pressure release actuation event.
Calculations may be based on data from the pressure relief device
monitoring alone or in combination with process parameter monitoring
data and process knowledge.
(2) You must determine the total number of pressure release
actuation events that occurred during the calendar year for each
pressure relief device.
(3) You must determine the total number of pressure release
actuation events for each pressure relief device for which the analysis
conducted as required by paragraph (c)(4) of this section concluded
that the pressure release was due to a force majeure event, as defined
in Sec. 63.7957.
(4) You must complete an analysis to determine the source, nature
and cause of each pressure release actuation event as soon as
practicable, but no later than 45 days after a pressure release
actuation event.
(5) You must identify corrective measures to prevent future such
pressure release actuation event s as soon as practicable, but no later
than 45 days after a pressure release actuation event.
(6) You must implement the corrective measure(s) identified as
required by paragraph (c)(5) of this section within 45 days of the
pressure release actuation event or as soon thereafter as practicable.
For corrective measures that cannot be fully implemented within 45 days
following the pressure release actuation event, you must record the
corrective measure(s) completed to date, and, for measure(s) not
already completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates, no later than 45 days following the
pressure release actuation event.
(d) The pressure relief devices listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(5) are not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section.
(1) Pressure relief devices designed and operated to route all
pressure releases through a closed vent system to a drain system
meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.7915-63.7918, or to a fuel
gas system, process or control device meeting the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 63.7925-63.7928.
(2) Pressure relief devices in heavy liquid service, as defined in
Sec. 63.1001 or Sec. 63.1020, as applicable.
(3) Thermal expansion relief valves.
(4) Pilot-operated pressure relief devices where the primary
release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control
device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain
system.
(5) Balanced bellows pressure relief devices where the primary
release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control
device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain
system.
(e) Except for the pressure relief devices described in paragraph
(d) of this section, it is a violation of the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for any pressure relief device
in remediation material service to release directly to the atmosphere
as a result of a pressure release actuation event(s) described in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Any pressure release actuation event for which the cause of the
event determined as required by paragraph (c)(4) of this section was
determined to be operator error or poor maintenance.
(2) A second pressure release actuation event, not including force
majeure events, from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar-
year period for the same cause for the same equipment.
(3) A third pressure release actuation event, not including force
majeure events, from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar-
year period for any reason.
0
20. Section 63.7925 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
[[Page 46175]]
Sec. 63.7925 What emissions limitations and work practice standards
must I meet for closed vent systems and control devices?
* * * * *
(b) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through the
closed-vent system to the control device, the control device must be
operating.
* * * * *
0
21. Section 63.7935 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7935 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emissions limitations
(including operating limits) and the work practice standards in this
subpart at all times. The owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
(b) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, 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 a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
(e) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emissions limitation and each operating limit that applies to you. You
must also report each instance in which you did not meet the
requirements for work practice standards that apply to you. These
instances are deviations from the emissions limitations and work
practice standards in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7951.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) Continuous monitoring system (CMS) operation and maintenance
requirements in accordance with Sec. 63.7945.
(5) CMS data collection in accordance with Sec. 63.7946.
* * * * *
0
22. Section 63.7941 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) and
paragraph (b)(4) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7941 How do I conduct a performance test, design evaluation,
or other type of initial compliance demonstration?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) You must conduct performance tests under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the General
Provisions. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.''
* * * * *
(4) Follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of
this section to determine compliance with the facility-wide total
organic mass emissions rate in Sec. 63.7890(b).
* * * * *
0
23. Section 63.7942 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7942 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
For non-flare control devices, you must conduct performance tests
at any time the EPA requires you to according to Sec. 63.7(a)(3).
0
24. Section 63.7943 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7943 How do I determine the average VOHAP concentration of
my remediation material?
* * * * *
(d) In the event that you and we disagree on a determination using
knowledge of the average total VOHAP concentration for a remediation
material, then the results from a determination of VOHAP concentration
using direct measurement by Method 305 in 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, will be used to determine
compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. We may
perform or require that you perform this determination using direct
measurement.
0
25. Section 63.7944 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7944 How do I determine the maximum HAP vapor pressure of my
remediation material?
* * * * *
(d) In the event that you and us disagree on a determination using
knowledge of the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation
material, then the results from a determination of maximum HAP vapor
pressure using direct measurement by Method 25E in 40 CFR part 60
appendix A, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, will be used
to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this
subpart. We may perform or require that you perform this determination
using direct measurement.
0
26. Section 63.7945 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(d) Failure to meet the requirements of (a)(1) through (4) of this
section is a deviation and must be reported according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7951(b)(7).
0
27. Section 63.7951 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(7) introductory text, (b)(7)(ii), (b)(8)
introductory text, and (b)(8)(i), (iv), and (vi),
0
d. Adding paragraphs (b)(10) and (11);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (e) through (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7951 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.7923 of this subpart, you must
submit the information listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this
section in the notification of compliance status required under Sec.
63.9(h) of this part within 150 days after the first applicable
[[Page 46176]]
compliance date for pressure relief device monitoring.
(ii) A description of the device or monitoring system to be
implemented, including the pressure relief devices and process
parameters to be monitored, and a description of the alarms or other
methods by which operators will be notified of a pressure release.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * *
(7) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) that occurs at an affected source for which you are
not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or CEMS) to
comply with an emissions limitation or work practice standard required
in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of
this section..
* * * * *
(ii) Information on the number of deviations. For each deviation,
include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and
the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal
or usual manner of operation.
(8) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected
source where you are using a continuous monitoring system (including a
CPMS or CEMS) to comply with the emissions limitations or work practice
standard in this subpart, you must include the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this
section.
(i) Information on the number of deviations. For each deviation,
include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and
the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal
or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(iv) For each deviation caused when the daily average value of a
monitored operating parameter is less than the minimum operating
parameter limit (or, if applicable, greater than the maximum operating
parameter limit), the report must include the daily average values of
the monitored parameter, the applicable operating parameter limit, and
the date and duration of the period that the deviation occurred. For
each deviation caused by lack of monitoring data, the report must
include the date and duration of period when the monitoring data were
not collected and the reason why the data were not collected.
* * * * *
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and unknown causes.
* * * * *
(10) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service,
compliance reports must include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service
subject to Sec. 63.7920(e) of this subpart, report any instrument
reading of 500 ppm above the background level or greater, if detected
more than 5 days after a pressure release.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in remediation service subject to
Sec. 63.7923(a), report confirmation that any monitoring required to
be done during the reporting period to show compliance was conducted.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service
subject to Sec. 63.7923(c) of this subpart, report each pressure
release to the atmosphere, including the following information:
(A) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release actuation
event.
(B) An estimate of the mass quantity of each HAP listed in Table 1
of this subpart emitted during the pressure release actuation event and
the method used for determining this quantity.
(C) The source, nature and cause of the pressure release actuation
event.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release actuation
event.
(E) The measures implemented during the reporting period to prevent
future such pressure release actuation events, and, if applicable, the
implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be
implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
(11) Pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation information.
Compliance reports must include the information specified in paragraph
(b)(11)(iv) of this section when any of the conditions in paragraphs
(b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section are met.
(i) Any pressure tank closure device, as specified in specified in
Sec. 63.7895(d)(4) of this subpart and Sec. 63.685(h)(2) of this
subpart, has released to the atmosphere.
(ii) Any closed vent system that includes bypass devices that could
divert a vent a stream away from the control device and into the
atmosphere, as specified in Sec. 63.7927(a)(2) of this subpart, has
released directly to the atmosphere.
(iii) Any open-ended valve or line in an emergency shutdown system
which is designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset, as specified in Sec. 63.1014(c) or Sec. 63.1033(c), has
released directly to the atmosphere.
(iv) The compliance report must include the information specified
in paragraphs (b)(11)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) The source, nature and cause of the release.
(B) The date, time and duration of the discharge.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the release and the method used for determining
this quantity.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such releases.
* * * * *
(e) Performance test and CMS performance evaluation reports. Within
60 days after the date of completing each performance test or
continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined
in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart, the owner or operator must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation
according to the manner specified by either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of
this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test or the performance evaluation of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT.
[[Page 46177]]
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test or the performance evaluation of
CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants by methods
that are not supported by the ERT must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(f) Submitting reports electronically. If you are required to
submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you
must submit reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must
use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report
must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless
of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of
the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential
business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(g) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(h) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
28. Section 63.7952 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7952 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.
(i) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected
source, you must record information on the number of deviations. For
each deviation, include the date, time, and duration, a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions, the actions taken to
minimize emissions, the cause of the deviation (including unknown
cause), as applicable, and the corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service,
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)
through (C) of this section, as applicable.
(A) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that are not subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.7923(a) through
(c) under the provisions of Sec. 63.7923(d).
(B) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.7923(a) through (c) that do not
consist of or include a rupture disk.
[[Page 46178]]
(C) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.7923(a) through (c) equipped
with rupture disks.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service
subject to Sec. 63.7923(c) of this subpart, keep records of each
pressure release event to the atmosphere as specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section.
(A) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release event.
(B) The dates and results of the EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release event, if
applicable. The results of each monitoring event shall include the
measured background level and the maximum instrument reading measured
at each pressure relief device.
(C) The dates replacement rupture disks were installed following a
pressure release event, if applicable.
(D) An estimate of the mass quantity of each HAP listed in Table 1
of this subpart emitted during the pressure release event and the
method used for determining this quantity.
(E) The source, nature and cause of the pressure release event,
including an identification of the affected pressure relief device(s)
and a statement noting whether the event resulted from the same
cause(s) identified following a previous pressure release event.
(F) The corrective measures identified to prevent future such
pressure release events, or an explanation of why corrective measures
are not necessary.
(G) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release event.
(H) Records of the corrective measures implemented, including a
description of the corrective measure(s) completed within the first 45
days following a pressure release event, and, if applicable, the
implementation schedule for planned corrective measures to be
implemented subsequent to the first 45 days following the pressure
release event, including proposed commencement and completion dates.
(I) Records of the number of pressure release events during each
calendar year and the number of those events for which the cause was
determined to be a force majeure event. Keep these records for the
current calendar year and the past five calendar years.
(iv)(A) For pressure tank closure devices, as specified in Sec.
63.7895(d)(4) and Sec. 63.685(h)(2), keep records of each release to
the atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs
(C)(1) though (7) of this section.
(B) For each closed vent system that includes bypass devices that
could divert a stream away from the control device and into the
atmosphere, as specified in Sec. 63.7927(a)(2), and each open-ended
valve or line in an emergency shutdown system which is designed to open
automatically in the event of a process upset, as specified in Sec.
63.1014(c) or Sec. 63.1033(c), keep records of each release to the
atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs (C)(1)
though (7) of this section.
(C)(1) The source, nature, and cause of the release.
(2) The date, time, and duration of the release.
(3) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the release and the calculations used for
determining this quantity.
(4) The actions taken to prevent this release.
(5) The measures adopted to prevent future such release.
(6) Hourly records of whether the bypass flow indicator specified
under Sec. 63.7927(a)(2)(i) was operating and whether a diversion was
detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times
of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device
or the flow indicator is not operating.
(7) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec.
63.7927(a)(2)(ii), hourly records of flow are not required. In such
cases, you must record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals
or closure mechanism has been done and record the duration of all
periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve
position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been
checked out, and records of any car-seal that has broken.
* * * * *
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
29. Section 63.7957 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``Bypass;''
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Deviation;''
0
c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Force majeure,''
``Pressure release,'' and ``Pressure relief device or valve;''
0
d. Revising the definition of ``Process vent;'' and
0
e. Removing the definition of ``Safety device.''
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7957 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Bypass means diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream
to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission
control device.
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation, (including any
operating limit), or work practice standard in this subpart regardless
of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
Force majeure event means a release of HAP directly to the
atmosphere from a pressure relief device that is demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Administrator to result from an event beyond the
owner or operator's control, such as natural disasters; acts of war or
terrorism; loss of a utility external to the ethylene production unit
(e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power curtailment due to
an interruptible service agreement; and fire or explosion originating
at a near or adjoining facility outside of the site remediation
affected source that impacts the site remediation affected source's
ability to operate.
* * * * *
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period.
Pressure relief device or valve means a safety device used to
prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process equipment. A common pressure relief
device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Devices that are
actuated either by a pressure of less than
[[Page 46179]]
or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not
pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
Process vent means any open-ended pipe, stack, duct, or other
opening intended to allow the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes to the
atmosphere and this passage is caused by mechanical means (such as
compressors, vacuum-producing systems or fans) or by process-related
means (such as volatilization produced by heating). For the purposes of
this subpart, a process vent is neither a pressure relief device (as
defined in this section) nor a stack, duct or other opening used to
exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, heater,
incinerator, or other combustion device.
* * * * *
0
30. Table 3 to subpart GGGGG of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As stated in Sec. 63.7940, you must comply with the applicable
General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
Table 3 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart GGGGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1...................... Applicability........ Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination;
Applicability After
Standard Established;
Permit Requirements;
Extensions, Notifications.
Sec. 63.2...................... Definitions.......... Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3...................... Units and Units and abbreviations Yes.
Abbreviations. for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4...................... Prohibited Activities Prohibited Activities; Yes.
Compliance date;
Circumvention,
Severability.
Sec. 63.5...................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. applications; approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Applicability........ General Provisions (GP) Yes.
apply unless compliance
extension GP apply to
area sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)............ Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and effective date; 3 years
Reconstructed after effective date;
sources. upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction commences
for 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................ Notification......... Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................ [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................ Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
New and major must comply with
Reconstructed Area major source standards
Sources That Become immediately upon becoming
Major. major, regardless of
whether required to
comply when they were an
area source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............ Compliance Dates for Comply according to date Yes.
Existing Sources. in subpart, which must be
no later than 3 years
after effective date. For
112(f) standards, comply
within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)............ [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................ Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area major must comply with
Sources That Become major source standards by
Major. date indicated in subpart
or by equivalent time
period (for example, 3
years).
Sec. 63.6(d)................... [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)............ Operation & .......................... No, see Sec. 63.7935(b).
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ Startup, Shutdown, .......................... No.
and Malfunction Plan
(SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ Compliance Except .......................... No, see Sec. 63.7935(b).
During SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............ Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance. operation and maintenance
plans, records,
inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)............ Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)................... Opacity/Visible Requirements for opacity No. No opacity standards.
Emissions (VE) and visible emissions
Standards. limits.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)........... Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria Yes.
for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)................... Presidential President may exempt Yes.
Compliance Exemption. source category from
requirement to comply
with final rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............ Performance Test Dates for Conducting Yes.
Dates. Initial Performance
Testing and Other
Compliance
Demonstrations. Must
conduct 180 days after
first subject to final
rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................ CAA Section 114 Administrator may require Yes.
Authority. a performance test under
CAA section 114 at any
time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)................ Notification of Must notify Administrator Yes.
Performance Test. 60 days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)................ Notification of If rescheduling a Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date of
rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)................... Quality Assurance/ Requirement to submit site- Yes.
Test Plan. specific test plan 60
days before the test or
on date Administrator
agrees with: Test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal
and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)................... Testing Facilities... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
[[Page 46180]]
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conditions for Performance tests must be No. You may not conduct
Conducting conducted under performance tests during
Performance Tests. representative periods of malfunction.
conditions. Cannot You must record the
conduct performance tests process information that
during SSM. Not a is necessary to document
violation to exceed operating conditions
standard during SSM. during the test and
include in such record an
explanation to support
that such conditions
represent normal
operation. Upon request,
you must make available
to the Administrator such
records as may be
necessary to determine
the conditions of
performance tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)................ Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes.
Conducting rule and EPA test methods
Performance Tests. unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)................ Test Run Duration.... Must have three test runs Yes.
of at least one hour
each. Compliance is based
on arithmetic mean of
three runs. Conditions
when data from an
additional test run can
be used.
Sec. 63.7(f)................... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)................... Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes.
Analysis. performance test report.
Must submit performance
test data 60 days after
end of test with the
Notification of
Compliance Status. Keep
data for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h)................... Waiver of Tests...... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................ Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................ Performance Performance Specifications Yes.
Specifications. in appendix B of part 60
apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................ [Reserved]...........
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Monitoring with Unless your rule says Yes.
Flares. otherwise, the
requirements for flares
in 63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)................ Monitoring........... Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)............ Multiple Effluents Specific requirements for Yes.
and Multiple installing monitoring
Monitoring Systems. systems. Must install on
each effluent before it
is combined and before it
is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise. If more than
one monitoring system on
an emissions point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless
one monitoring system is
a backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................ Monitoring System Maintain monitoring system Yes.
Operation and in a manner consistent
Maintenance. with good air pollution
control practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............. Monitoring System Operate and maintain No.
Operation. system as specified in
Sec. 63.6(e)(1).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............ Monitoring System Keep part for routine Yes.
Repair. repairs available.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........... Monitoring System SSM Develop an SSM Plan for No.
Plan. the monitoring system.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............ Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emissions
and parameter
measurements. Must verify
operational status before
or at performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ Continuous Monitoring CMS must be operating No.
System (CMS) except during breakdown,
Requirements. out-of-control, repair,
maintenance, and high-
level calibration drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)........ Continuous Monitoring COMS must have a minimum Yes. However, COMS are not
System (CMS) of one cycle of sampling applicable. Requirements
Requirements. and analysis for each for CPMS are listed in
successive 10-second Sec. Sec. 63.7900 and
period and one cycle of 63.7913.
data recording for each
successive 6-minute
period. CEMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of
operation for each
successive 15-minute
period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................ COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures... No.
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................ CMS Requirements..... Zero and High level Yes. However requirements
calibration check for CPMS are addressed in
requirements. Sec. 63.7927.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)............ CMS Requirements..... Out-of-control periods, Yes.
including reporting.
Sec. 63.8(d)................... CMS Quality Control.. Requirements for CMS Yes.
quality control,
including calibration,
etc. Must keep quality
control plan on record
for 5 years. Keep old
versions for 5 years
after revisions.
Sec. 63.8(e)................... CMS Performance Notification, performance Yes.
Evaluation. evaluation test plan,
reports.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Alternative Procedures for Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to approve
alternative monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Alternative to Procedures for No.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve
Test. alternative relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)............ Data Reduction....... COMS 6-minute averages Yes. However, COMS are not
calculated over at least applicable. Requirements
36 evenly spaced data for CPMS are addressed in
points. CEMS 1-hour Sec. Sec. 63.7900 and
averages computed over at 63.7913.
least four equally spaced
data points.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................ Data Reduction....... Data that cannot be used No.
in computing averages for
CEMS and COMS.
Sec. 63.9(a)................... Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. Delegation.
[[Page 46181]]
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)............ Initial Notifications Submit notification 120 Yes.
days after effective
date. Notification of
intent to construct/
reconstruct; Notification
of commencement of
construct/reconstruct;
Notification of startup.
Contents of each.
Sec. 63.9(c)................... Request for Can request if cannot Yes.
Compliance Extension. comply by date or if
installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d)................... Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for New proposal and promulgation
Source. and want to comply 3
years after effective
date.
Sec. 63.9(e)................... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)................... Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator 30 No.
Opacity Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)................... Additional Notification of Yes. However, there are no
Notifications When performance evaluation. opacity standards.
Using CMS. Notification using COMS
data. Notification that
exceeded criterion for
relative accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)............ Notification of Contents. Due 60 days Yes.
Compliance Status. after end of performance
test or other compliance
demonstration, except for
opacity/VE, which are due
30 days after. When to
submit to Federal vs.
State authority.
Sec. 63.9(i)................... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. Administrator to approve
change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes.
Information. after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a).................. Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension.
When to submit to Federal
vs. State authority.
Procedures for owners of
more than 1 source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... Recordkeeping/ General Requirements. Keep Yes.
Reporting. all records readily
available. Keep for 5
years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii)... Records related to Exceedance of emission No.
SSM. limit during startup,
shutdown or malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Maintenance Records.. Maintenance on air Yes.
pollution control
equipment..
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)... Records related to Actions during SSM........ No.
SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x-xi) CMS Records.......... Malfunctions, inoperative, Yes.
out-of-control.
Calibration checks.
Adjustments, maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)..... Records.............. Measurements to Yes.
demonstrate compliance
with emissions
limitations. Performance
test, performance
evaluation, and visible
emissions observation
results. Measurements to
determine conditions of
performance tests and
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii).......... Records.............. Records when under waiver. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......... Records.............. Records when using No.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).......... Records.............. All documentation Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............... Records.............. Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c).................. Records.............. Additional Records for CMS No.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............... General Reporting Requirement to report..... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............... Report of Performance When to submit to Federal Yes.
Test Results. or State authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Reporting Opacity or What to report and when... No.
VE Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............... Progress Reports..... Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............... Startup, Shutdown, Contents and submission... No.
and Malfunction
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)........... Additional CMS Must report results for Yes. However, COMS are not
Reports. each CEM on a unit applicable.
Written copy of
performance evaluation
Three copies of COMS
performance evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............... Reports.............. Excess Emissions Reports.. No.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i-iii)........ Reports.............. Schedule for reporting No.
excess emissions and
parameter monitor
exceedance (now defined
as deviations).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv-v)......... Excess Emissions Requirement to revert to No.
Reports. quarterly submission if
there is an excess
emissions and parameter
monitor exceedance (now
defined as deviations).
Provision to request
semiannual reporting
after compliance for one
year. Submit report by
30th day following end of
quarter or calendar half.
If there has not been an
exceedance or excess
emissions (now defined as
deviations), report
contents is a statement
that there have been no
deviations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv-v)......... Excess Emissions Must submit report No.
Reports. containing all of the
information in Sec. Sec.
63.10(c)(5-13) and
63.8(c)(7-8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii)...... Excess Emissions Requirements for reporting No.
Report and Summary excess emissions for CMSs
Report. (now called deviations).
Requires all of the
information in Sec. Sec.
63.10(c)(5-13) and
63.8(c)(7-8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............... Reporting COMS data.. Must submit COMS data with No.
performance test data.
[[Page 46182]]
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control and work Requirements for flares Yes.
practice and alternative work
requirements. practice for equipment
leaks.
Sec. 63.12..................... Delegation........... State authority to enforce Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.13..................... Addresses............ Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14..................... Incorporation by Test methods incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15..................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-17223 Filed 8-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
