National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, 14526-14558 [2020-02369]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14526
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0662; FRL–10005–06–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT34
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Residual Risk and
Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories
regulated under national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP). In addition, we are taking
final action to: Correct and clarify
regulatory provisions related to
emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM);
revise monitoring requirements for a
control device used to comply with the
particulate matter (PM) standards; add
requirements for periodic performance
testing; add electronic reporting of
performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and Notification of
Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; and
include other technical corrections to
improve consistency and clarity. We are
making no revisions to the numerical
emission limits based on the residual
risk analysis or technology review.
Although these amendments are not
anticipated to result in reductions in
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP), they will improve compliance
and implementation of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 12, 2020. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
March 12, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0662. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday
through Friday. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, contact
Tonisha Dawson, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243–02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
1454; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and
email address: dawson.tonisha@epa.gov.
For specific information regarding the
risk assessment, 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: woody.matthew@
epa.gov. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a
particular entity, contact John Cox,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–1395; and email
address: cox.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 levels
APCD air pollution control device
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental
Protection Agency
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning
Guidelines
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on
Cancer
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OECA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to
be persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT reasonably available control
technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On May 2,
2019, the EPA proposed results of the
RTR and amendments to the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action,
we are finalizing decisions regarding the
RTR and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments are available in the
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
document, which is available in the
docket, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2017–0662. A ‘‘track changes’’ version
of the regulatory language that
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14527
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
incorporates the changes in this action
is also available in the docket.
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?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What are the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source
categories?
C. What changes did we propose for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories in our
May 2, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the residual risk review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to
the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories
B. Technology Review for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories
C. Amendments Addressing Emissions
During Periods of SSM
D. Technical Amendments to the MACT
Standards
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations 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
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION
NESHAP
Asphalt Processing .....................................................................
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing ..................................................
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing ...........
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing ...........
1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
NAICS 1 Code
Source category
324110
324122
North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical
documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on
the RTR website at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
This information includes an overview
of the RTR program, links to project
websites for the RTR source categories,
and detailed emissions and other data
we used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/asphalt-processing-andasphalt-roofing-manufacturing-national.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) by May 11,
2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final
rule may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to
reconsider the rule if the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within the period
for public comment or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14528
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of HAP from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must
identify categories of sources emitting
one or more of the HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b) and then promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those
sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that
emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year
(tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources,
these standards are commonly referred
to as maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards and must
reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements,
and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing
MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2)
directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes,
methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to those that
reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP
emissions through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other
modifications; enclose systems or
processes to eliminate emissions;
collect, capture, or treat HAP when
released from a process, stack, storage,
or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or
operational standards; or any
combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
MACT floor requirements, and which
may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
standards, we must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards
more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, the CAA requires the EPA to
undertake two different analyses, which
we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, we must review the
technology-based standards and revise
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(f).1 For more
information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 18926, May 2,
2019.
B. What are the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source
categories?
The EPA promulgated the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP on April 29,
2003 (68 FR 22975). The standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL. The asphalt processing industry
consists of facilities that are engaged in
the preparation and oxidation of asphalt
flux. The asphalt roofing manufacturing
industry consists of facilities that are
engaged in the production of asphalt
roofing products. As of December 15,
1 The Court has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during
the residual risk rulemaking.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2019, there were eight facilities in
operation and subject to the MACT
standards. Four of the eight facilities are
strictly asphalt processing facilities and
the other four operate an asphalt roofing
manufacturing facility collocated with
an asphalt processing facility.
As promulgated in 2003 and amended
on May 17, 2005 (70 FR 28360), the
NESHAP prescribes MACT standards
for asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities that are
major sources of HAP. The MACT
standards establish emission limits for
PM and total hydrocarbons (THC) as
surrogates for total organic HAP. The
MACT standards also limit the opacity
and visible emissions from certain
emission sources. The source categories
and the MACT standards are further
described in the proposed rule. See 84
FR 18926, 18929 (May 2, 2019).
C. What changes did we propose for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories in our
May 2, 2019, RTR proposal?
On May 2, 2019, the EPA published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP, 40
CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, that took
into consideration the RTR analyses. We
proposed to find that the risks from each
of the source categories are acceptable
and that additional or revised standards
are not required in order to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. See 84 FR 18926,
18929 (May 2, 2019). In addition,
pursuant to the technology review for
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source
categories, we proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current
standards are necessary for asphalt
loading racks, asphalt storage tanks,
blowing stills, coating mixers, saturators
(including wet loopers), coaters, sealant
applicators, and adhesive applicators.
The EPA also proposed to conclude that
it is not necessary to promulgate a
hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions
standard for blowing stills pursuant to
the technology review.
We also proposed the following
amendments:
• Revisions to the SSM provisions of
the NESHAP in order to ensure
consistency with the Court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), which vacated two
provisions that exempted source owners
and operators from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable CAA
section 112(d) emission standards
during periods of SSM;
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
• a provision allowing owners and
operators to use manufacturers’
specifications to establish the maximum
pressure drop across the control device
used to comply with the PM standards;
• a provision allowing owners and
operators to use the performance test
average inlet temperature and apply an
operating margin of +20 percent to
determine maximum inlet gas
temperature of a control device used to
comply with the PM standards;
• periodic performance testing (i.e., at
least once every 5 years), using the same
methods currently required for the
initial compliance demonstration, of
each air pollution control device
(APCD) used to comply with the PM,
THC, opacity, or visible emission
standards, in addition to the current
one-time initial performance testing and
ongoing operating limit monitoring;
• a requirement for electronic
submittal of performance test results
and reports, performance evaluation
reports, compliance reports, and NOCS
reports;
• IBR of an alternative test method for
EPA Test Method 9; and
• several minor editorial and
technical changes in the subpart.
In the same document, although we
did not propose any rule amendments
based on the residual risk or technology
reviews, we requested comment on the
relationship between the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review and the
CAA section 112(f) residual risk review;
specifically, the extent to which
findings that underlie a CAA section
112(f) determination should be
considered in making any
determinations under CAA section
112(d)(6).
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112(f)(2) and
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories. This
action also finalizes other changes to the
NESHAP, including corrections and
clarifications to regulatory provisions
related to emissions during periods of
SSM; adding electronic reporting of
performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports;
and other technical corrections to
improve consistency and clarity. This
action also includes a number of other
amendments to the NESHAP generally
similar to those proposed in the May 2,
2019, RTR proposal, such as
amendments related to monitoring
procedures and periodic performance
testing, but with some modifications
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
based on consideration of comments
received during the public comment
period as described in sections III.D and
IV.D of this preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the residual risk review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
This section describes the final
actions regarding the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP that the EPA is taking
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The
EPA proposed no changes to these
NESHAP based on the residual risk
reviews conducted pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). In this action, we are
finalizing our proposed determination
that risks due to emissions from the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories are
acceptable, and that the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect.
The EPA received two emissions
inventory updates for two specific
facilities during the public comment
period. After considering the updated
information, the Agency decided to
update certain modeling file records for
those two facilities and to reanalyze risk
for both source categories, in part
because some of the emissions estimates
were notably higher than the estimates
we used for risk modeling for the
proposal and we wanted to confirm that
risks were still acceptable. The EPA
reanalyzed risk using the same risk
assessment methodology used for the
proposed rule; however, this did not
result in any change to our proposed
determination. Based on our analyses
(which include the emissions inventory
updates received during the public
comment period), we find that the
current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. The EPA is, therefore, not
revising the standards under CAA
section 112(f)(2) (for NESHAP 40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLLLL) based on the
residual risk review. See sections IV.A.2
and IV.A.3 of this preamble for
discussion of key comments and
responses regarding the residual risk
review, including details about the
emissions inventory updates we
received during the public comment
period.
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
The EPA is not finalizing the
technology review as proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14529
regarding HCl emissions standards for
blowing stills. As discussed in section
IV.B of this preamble, the EPA
determined that it is not appropriate to
establish new standards for previously
unregulated sources or pollutants as
part of the technology review. The
Agency is finalizing all required aspects
of the technology review as proposed.
The EPA has determined that there are
no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for these source categories.
Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under
CAA section 112(d)(6). Section IV.B.3 of
this preamble provides a summary of
key comments we received on the
technology review and our responses.
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
The Agency is finalizing, as proposed,
changes to the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP to eliminate the SSM
exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA is establishing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. Table 7 to
subpart LLLLL of part 63 (General
Provisions applicability table) is being
revised to change several references
related to requirements that apply
during periods of SSM. The EPA
eliminated or revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated
SSM exemption. The EPA also made
changes to the rule to remove or modify
inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant language in the absence of
the SSM exemption. The EPA
determined that facilities in these
source categories can meet the
applicable emission standards in the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP at all times,
including periods of startup and
shutdown. Therefore, the EPA
determined that no additional standards
are needed to address emissions during
these periods. Also, as stated in our
proposal, the EPA interprets CAA
section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of
malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112
standards, and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the Court in
U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
606–10 (2016). The legal rationale and
detailed changes for SSM periods that
are being finalized in this rule are set
forth in the proposed rule. See 84 FR
18945 through 18949.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14530
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
The EPA is also finalizing a revision
to the performance testing requirements
at 40 CFR 63.8687(b). This final rule text
states that each performance test must
be conducted under normal operating
conditions; and operations during
periods of startup, shutdown, or
nonoperation do not constitute
representative conditions for purposes
of conducting a performance test. The
final rules also require that operators
maintain records to document that
operating conditions during the test
represent normal operations. Section
IV.C.3 of this preamble provides a
summary of key comments we received
on the SSM provisions and our
responses.
D. What other changes have been made
to the NESHAP?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed,
revisions to several other NESHAP
requirements. The revisions are briefly
described in this section (refer to section
IV.D of this preamble for further
details).
To increase the ease and efficiency of
data submittal and data accessibility, we
are finalizing a requirement that owners
and operators of facilities in the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories submit
electronic copies of certain required
performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports
through the EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) website. Performance
test and performance evaluation test
reports are prepared using the EPA’s
Electronic Reporting Tool. We also are
finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow facility operators the ability to
seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility (i.e., a
possible outage in the CDX or
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or a force
majeure event in the time just prior to
a report’s due date), as well as the
process to assert such a claim. In
addition, we are finalizing all revisions
that we proposed for clarifying text or
correcting typographical errors,
grammatical errors, and cross-reference
errors. These editorial corrections and
clarifications are summarized in Table 4
of the proposal. See 54 FR 18951 and
18952. We received no public comment
on the editorial corrections and
clarifications and these changes are
being finalized as proposed.
We are also finalizing amendments in
the NESHAP for monitoring pressure
drop and temperature of APCDs, and for
periodic compliance testing, similar to
the proposed amendments, but with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
some modifications in response to
issues raised in comments on the
proposed rulemaking. Regarding
pressure drop, instead of using
manufacturers’ specifications or a
performance test to establish only a
maximum pressure drop across the
control device used to comply with the
PM standards as proposed, we are
finalizing a requirement that requires
owners and operators to establish a
pressure drop range (i.e., a minimum
and a maximum pressure drop) across
the PM control device with the option
to either use manufacturers’
specifications or a performance test to
establish the range. The addition of a
minimum limitation to the operating
range of the PM control device mirrors
the approach in the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area
source NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an
indication of breakthrough or bypass of
the control device, as a drop in the
differential pressure below that
established by the manufacturer’s
specification would indicate that
potentially either the control device has
been inadvertently bypassed (leaking
around the filter) or tearing or distortion
of the filter has occurred. As stated in
the proposal, allowing the use of
manufacturers’ specifications provides
flexibility and alleviates the need for a
facility to have to retest the PM control
device to reestablish new operating
limits due to the inability of a source to
‘‘dial in’’ the differential pressure of
their control device for a particular
performance test as the differential
pressure increases over time as a result
of particulate deposition. With regard to
monitoring temperature, similar to
proposal, the Agency is finalizing a
requirement that allows owners and
operators to use the performance test
average inlet temperature and apply an
operating margin of +20 percent to
determine maximum inlet gas
temperature of a control device used to
comply with the PM standards;
however, in the final rule, the Agency
is clarifying the operating margin
applies to temperatures expressed in
units of degrees Celsius or degrees
Fahrenheit. The EPA acknowledges that
the use of Celsius will result in a
slightly more conservative temperature
range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit less when
compared to the corresponding
Fahrenheit range), but it is appropriate
to provide the flexibility for facilities to
use either temperature scale as either
scale will ensure the control devices are
operating properly. On the other hand,
the application of a 20-percent margin
to temperature expressed in absolute
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
temperature (Rankin or Kelvin scales)
would result in too large of an operating
limit window. Therefore, we are not
allowing the use of an absolute
temperature scale. Finally, to ensure
ongoing compliance with the standards,
the EPA is finalizing requirements for
periodic performance testing for each
APCD used to comply with the PM,
THC, opacity, and visible emission
standards, in addition to the current
one-time initial performance testing and
ongoing operating limit monitoring. The
EPA is requiring that the performance
tests must be conducted at least once
every 5 years, as proposed; however, the
Agency is adding language to the final
rule text to allow facilities to
synchronize their periodic performance
testing schedule with a previously
conducted emission test provided they
can demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that the previouslyconducted testing meets the
requirements of this rule.
E. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards
being promulgated in this action are
effective on March 12, 2020. The EPA is
finalizing three changes that would
affect ongoing compliance requirements
for this subpart. First, we are changing
the requirements for SSM by removing
the provisions that provide an
exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods.
Second, we are removing the
requirement to develop and implement
an SSM plan. Finally, we are adding a
requirement that performance test
results and reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports,
and NOCS reports be submitted
electronically. From the assessment of
the timeframe needed for implementing
the entirety of the revised requirements,
the EPA proposed a period of 180 days
to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable. No opposing
comments were received during the
public comment period, and the 180day period is being finalized as
proposed. Thus, the compliance date of
the final amendments for all affected
sources is September 8, 2020.
Also, we are adding requirements to
conduct ongoing periodic performance
testing every 5 years. The EPA proposed
that each existing affected source, and
each new and reconstructed affected
source that commences construction or
reconstruction after November 21, 2001,
and on or before March 12, 2020 that
uses an APCD to comply with the
standards, must conduct the first
periodic performance test on or before
March 13, 2023 and conduct subsequent
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
periodic performance tests no later than
60 months thereafter following the
previous performance test. The EPA also
proposed that owners or operators of
each new and reconstructed affected
source that commences construction or
reconstruction after March 12, 2020 that
uses an APCD to comply with the
standards, conduct the first periodic
performance test no later than 60
months following the initial
performance test and conduct
subsequent periodic performance tests
no later than 60 months thereafter
following the previous performance test.
If owners or operators used the
alternative compliance option specified
in 40 CFR 63.8686(b) to comply with the
initial performance test, then the EPA
proposed that they must conduct the
first periodic performance test no later
than 60 months following the date they
demonstrated to the Administrator that
the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8686(b)
had been met. These compliance dates
are being finalized as proposed;
however, based on a comment received
during the public comment period, the
EPA is including additional language
14531
that allows facilities to synchronize
their periodic performance testing
schedule with a previously conducted
emission test provided they can
demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that the previously
conducted testing meets the
requirements of this rule (refer to
section IV.D of this preamble for further
details).
Manufacturing, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
For each issue, this section provides
a description of what we proposed and
what we are finalizing for the issue, the
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions
and amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the
EPA’s responses can be found in the
comment summary and response
document, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Risk and
Technology Review for Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the
EPA conducted a residual risk review
and presented the results of this review,
along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety, in the May 2, 2019,
proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL (84 FR 18926). The key
results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented in Table 2 of this
preamble. More detail may be found in
the residual risk technical support
document, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
TABLE 2—ASPHALT PROCESSING AND ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING PROPOSED INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
Number of
facilities 1
8 ...................
Maximum individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million) 2
Estimated population
at increased risk of
cancer ≥1-in-1 million
Estimated annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
Maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI
Maximum screening
acute noncancer
HQ
Based on actual
emissions level 2 3
Based on actual
emissions level 3
Based on actual
emissions level 3
Based on actual
emissions level 3
Based on actual
emissions level
<1
0
0.0007
0.1
HQREL = 4 (formaldehyde).
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories.
emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2 Maximum
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
3 Actual
The results of the proposed inhalation
risk assessment, as shown in Table 2 of
this preamble, indicated that the cancer
risk to the individual most exposed is
below 1-in-1 million from both actual
and allowable emissions, the estimated
maximum chronic noncancer target
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI)
based on both actual and allowable
emissions is 0.1, and the maximum
acute noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) is
4 driven by formaldehyde based on the
acute reference exposure level (REL). At
proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels was
estimated to be 0.0007 excess cancer
cases per year, or one case in every
1,430 years.
The maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk posed by the eight facilities,
based on whole facility emissions, was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
estimated to be 9-in-1 million at
proposal, with naphthalene and
benzene emissions from facility-wide
fugitive emissions and nickel compound
emissions from flares from the
Petroleum Refinery source category
driving the risk. At proposal, the
maximum chronic noncancer hazard
index (HI) posed by whole facility
emissions was estimated to be 0.1 (for
the respiratory system) and occurred at
two facilities.
At proposal, the Agency identified
emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment (PB–HAP): Cadmium
compounds, lead compounds, mercury
compounds, and polycyclic organic
matter (POM) (of which polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset). The
multipathway risk screening assessment
resulted in a maximum Tier 2 cancer
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
screening value of 2 for POM. The Tier
2 screening values for all other PB–HAP
emitted from the source categories
(cadmium compounds, lead
compounds, and mercury compounds)
were less than 1.
The ecological risk screening
assessment indicated all modeled points
were below the Tier 1 screening
threshold based on actual and allowable
emissions of PB–HAP and acid gases
emitted by the source categories.
We weighed all health risk factors,
including those shown in Table 2 of this
preamble, in our risk acceptability
determination and proposed that the
risks posed by the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source categories are acceptable (see
section IV.B.1 of the proposal preamble,
84 FR 18939, May 2, 2019).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14532
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The EPA then considered whether 40
CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, provides
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and whether, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, standards are
required to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In considering
whether standards are required to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, we considered the
same risk factors that we considered for
our acceptability determination and also
considered the costs, technological
feasibility, and other relevant factors
related to emissions control options that
might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category. The
EPA proposed that additional or revised
standards for the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source categories are not required to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. The Agency also
proposed 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. See
section IV.B.2 of the proposal preamble,
84 FR 18939, May 2, 2019.
2. How did the residual risk review
change for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
As part of the final risk assessment,
the EPA reanalyzed risks using
emissions inventory updates that were
received for two specific facilities
during the public comment period.
These updates included revised actual
emissions, allowable emissions, and
acute emissions for numerous pollutants
from three different emission units at
one facility (i.e., a blowing still and two
asphalt storage tanks) and revised
formaldehyde acute emission rates from
four asphalt storage tanks at another
facility. The revised emissions used to
reanalyze risks are available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Our assessment of the effects of these
changes resulted in no change to the
maximum lifetime cancer risk for the
source categories (i.e., the cancer risk to
the individual most exposed is below 1in-1 million from both actual and
allowable emissions). Also, the
maximum chronic noncancer HI for the
source categories remains less than 1.
The maximum screening level acute HQ
decreased from 4 to less than 1. Table
3 summarizes the inhalation risk
assessment results for the final rule. For
the reanalyzed multipathway screening
level assessment, the maximum Tier 2
PB–HAP screening value decreased
from 2 to less than 1, based on revised
emissions received during the comment
period. Finally, the environmental risk
screening level assessment indicated all
modeled points were below the Tier 1
screening threshold for all PB–HAP and
acid gases emitted by the source
category. As described in other sections
of this preamble, the updated HAP
emissions estimates that we received in
the public comments resulted in
increased emissions for some HAP and
decreased emissions for other HAP.
After incorporating the new emissions
data and rerunning the risk model, the
estimated acute risk levels decreased
because the emissions estimates for the
acute risk driver HAP (i.e., acrolein and
formaldehyde) were revised to lower
estimates based on comments. The
updated emissions estimates are
provided in updated risk input files (i.e.,
HEM files) which are available in the
docket. In summary, the new
information and reanalyzed risks did
not cause a change to the proposed
determination that risks caused by
emissions from these source categories
are acceptable, and that the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect.
Additional details of the reanalyzed
risks can be found in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Source Categories in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
TABLE 3—ASPHALT PROCESSING AND ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING FINAL INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
Number of
facilities 1
8 ...................
Maximum individual
cancer risk (in 1
million) 2
Estimated population
at increased risk
of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million
Estimated annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
Maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI
Maximum screening
acute noncancer
HQ
Based on actual
emissions level 2 3
Based on actual
emissions level 3
Based on actual
emissions level 3
Based on actual
emissions level 3
Based on actual
emissions level
<1
0
0.0009
0.03
HQREL = 0.5
(arsenic).
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories.
emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
2 Maximum
3 Actual
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
3. What key comments did we receive
on the residual risk review, and what
are our responses?
Comment: One commenter said that
the EPA’s risk modeling file does not
reflect the correct emission records for
their facility (CertainTeed Corp,
Shakopee MN), which they provided to
the EPA in December 2017. The
commenter submitted, in Microsoft
Excel format, proposed revisions to the
EPA’s risk modeling file that mirror the
corrections that were submitted to the
EPA in December 2017 plus one
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
additional correction; these revisions
include updates to actual, allowable,
and acute emissions for three different
emission units (i.e., a blowing still and
two asphalt storage tanks).
Another commenter explained that
they compared ‘‘actual allowable’’
annual emissions of risk-driving HAP
(those HAP contributing at least 10
percent of the overall maximum cancer
risk and maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI) used in the EPA’s risk modeling
file against the most recent facilityprovided responses to the CAA section
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
114 information collection request
(ICR). The commenter claimed that
there are two facilities (110000768312
and 110000347018) that have revisions
to the CAA section 114 survey data that
have not yet been incorporated into the
assessment of chronic hazards and
advocated that these facilities’ revisions
be incorporated into the final risk
modeling. The commenter also stated
that, other than these revisions, their
review did not identify any significant
errors in the inputs to the EPA’s Human
Exposure Model (HEM–3) risk modeling
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
results. The commenter stated that the
EPA overestimated risk for acrolein
emissions from a blowing still at
Facility 110000768312. The commenter
explained that the acrolein maximum
hourly emission rate of the blowing still
(HEM–3 source ID CESC0001) used in
the EPA’s risk modeling file should be
revised to 0.0146 pounds per hour
(0.0639 tpy) in lieu of the value used in
the EPA’s analysis (i.e., 19.4 tpy). The
commenter contended that because this
blowing still is the only source of
acrolein emissions at this facility, the
acute HQ decreases linearly with the
emission rate; and the commenter
estimated the revised maximum acute
HQ to be 0.008. The commenter also
noted that with their revisions to the
acrolein emission rates, the acute risk
driver for the facility becomes
formaldehyde, which has a maximum
acute HQ of 0.044. The commenter
provided an aerial photo of the specific
facility and the corresponding acute
HQs for acrolein and formaldehyde at
HEM–3 polar receptor locations.
A third commenter stated that the
EPA must subject CertainTeed’s
(Facility 110000768312) acrolein
emissions to emission limits. The
commenter stated that the EPA relied on
the acute exposure guideline level
(AEGL) value to conclude that an ample
margin of safety was already provided,
but that all the EPA reports is that the
Agency did not ‘‘identify any processes,
practices, or control technologies’’ to
reduce acrolein emissions. The
commenter disagreed with EPA’s
conclusion that, ‘‘acrolein-specific
standards . . . are not necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety,’’
stating that it is not clear how one
follows from the other.
The commenter stated that the EPA is
not lost for options under this analysis
if control technology and practices fail
to provide an ample margin of safety,
and that it must go beyond what may
suffice for a technology review posture.
The commenter argued that the EPA
must consider setting emissions limits,
rather than performance standards or
control requirements, where—as with
CertainTeed—a facility’s emission levels
and performance standards do not
provide an ample margin of protection.
The commenter alleged that the EPA
ignored the fact that its own data show
this facility to be the only facility with
significant acrolein emissions, and the
EPA doesn’t bother to ask why this
facility is an outlier.2
2 Asphalt RRA Attachment_3—Actual allowable
emissions Asphalt HEMInput HAPEmis Grp 1of 1
CatLevel 20171212. Docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OAR–2017–0662–0015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Response: The Agency first wants to
clarify that one of the commenters
revised their comment after the public
comment period closed, by naming only
one facility (110000768312) (and not
Facility 110000347018) as having
revisions to the CAA section 114 survey
data that had not yet been incorporated
into risk modeling (see email from the
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers
Association (ARMA) to the EPA dated
July 8, 2019, which is available in the
docket for this action). Second,
regarding the corrected emission records
that were provided to the EPA in
December 2017 for this facility
(110000768312), the 2017 cover letter
that was submitted to the EPA requested
that the EPA correct the emissions in
two specific cells pertaining to chromic
acid emissions. The Agency corrected
those chromic acid emissions as
requested and they are reflected in the
modeling file that was used for the
proposed risk assessment. However,
based on the comments received during
the public comment period, we also
learned that there were several other
emissions data cells in the 2017 CAA
section 114 ICR that the facility wanted
corrected (i.e., changes to actual,
allowable, and acute emissions for three
different emission units, including a
blowing still and two asphalt storage
tanks). The EPA reviewed these revised
emissions estimates and determined
them to be valid. All of the revisions
requested by the facility have been
incorporated and correct the emissions
originally entered in error. Some of
these revisions correct overestimated
values (by decreasing pollutant-specific
emissions), and the remaining revisions
correct underestimated values (by
increasing pollutant-specific emissions).
We assessed whether all of the revised
emissions were reasonable by
comparing the revised emissions to
other similar emissions sources in the
source category. We also confirmed that
there were no changes to any stack
parameters, dimensions of fugitive
sources, coordinates, or other inputs not
related to emissions. Using those
revised emissions, the EPA reassessed
risks from asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
The revised emissions did not result in
any changes to our proposed
determination that risks caused by
emissions from these source categories
are acceptable, and that the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. The
revised maximum acute HQ screening
value is 0.5, based on a REL for arsenic
compounds. The two HQ screening
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14533
values that were greater than 1 in the
risk assessment performed for the
proposal (a refined, or off-site, HQ of 4
for formaldehyde and 2 for acrolein,
both based on a REL) are now both less
than 1 (0.3 and 0.08, respectively, and
again based on a REL). Therefore, no
pollutant exceeded any acute health
benchmark (i.e., REL, AEGL, Emergency
Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG))
in our screening-level acute assessment.
More details on the revised risk
assessment is available in the document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories in
Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule.
Comment: One commenter submitted
a correction to the EPA’s risk modeling
file for the formaldehyde maximum
emission rate of four asphalt storage
tanks (i.e., emission unit IDs T014,
T015, T016, and T021) at the Owens
Corning Medina County Plant, Facility
Registry Service ID 110000388919. The
commenter provided calculations
showing that the formaldehyde
maximum emission rate for each of
these four storage tanks should be
0.0429 tpy. Similarly, another
commenter attested that the EPA
overestimated risk for formaldehyde
emissions from these four storage tanks
(at Facility 110000388919). Based on the
facility corrected values, this
commenter estimated the revised
maximum acute HQ to be 0.2. The
commenter provided an aerial photo of
the specific facility and the
corresponding acute HQs for
formaldehyde at HEM–3 polar receptor
locations.
Another commenter argued that EPA’s
evaluation of potential control options
for Owen Corning’s formaldehyde
emissions is flawed. The commenter
disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that
‘‘additional emissions controls’’ for
storage tanks ‘‘are not necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety.’’ The
commenter stated that EPA’s dismissal
of formaldehyde controls must be
revisited without consideration of costs
and instead focus on whether these
controls are necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
The commenter noted the EPA’s
acknowledgement of the HQ of 4 but
challenged the EPA’s conclusion that
eliminating this risk is a ‘‘small risk
reduction.’’ The commenter stated that
it is unclear why the EPA thinks costper-ton is the proper metric for the
EPA’s analysis of cost, when small
amounts of highly toxic pollutants can
present a significant risk. As an
example, the commenter referenced the
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14534
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
EPA’s finding that a moderate amount of
emissions of formaldehyde from
facilities overall contributed to about 48
percent of increased cancer incidence.
The commenter stated that the EPA fails
to consider the relevant factors—impact
on health, public safety, and the risks
posed—in favor of a misleadingly high
cost-per-ton estimate.
The commenter further argued that
the EPA never explains how the current
standards manage to both produce an
HQ of 4—a threat to the health of the
exposed public—while also providing
an ample margin of safety for that same
public; the EPA merely concludes that
it is so. The commenter stated that the
EPA cannot validly explain this
conclusion because the two are
irreconcilable, and that the EPA can
only point to cost, which it is not
statutorily allowed to consider.
The commenter added that, even asis, it is unclear why the EPA is even
estimating the cost of control in its
analysis, claiming the EPA should be
able to get actual costs from existing
facilities’ records, or at minimum, an
estimate from an actual control supplier
rather than attempting to cobble its own
together. The commenter argued that
relying on estimates just injects more
unnecessary uncertainty into the EPA’s
analysis.
Response: The EPA reviewed the
revised emissions estimates for
formaldehyde provided during the
comment period and determined those
emissions were valid. The revised
formaldehyde emission rates are based
on corrections discovered during a
permit review by Owens Corning of four
asphalt storage tanks. Previously, the
sum of emissions for all individual
volatile organic compounds (VOC) for
the four asphalt storage tanks exceeded
the maximum potential to emit for THC,
which is physically impossible and
would greatly overestimate risk. Owens
Corning revised the formaldehyde
emission rates based on the emission
factors listed in Jankousky (2003).3 The
emission factors in the Jankousky study
were subsequently peer-reviewed and
published in a scientific research
journal (Trumbore et al., 2005).4 Using
those revised emissions, the EPA
reassessed risks from asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities. The revised emissions did not
cause us to change our proposed
determination that risks due to
3 Jankousky, Angela Libby. Proposed Emission
Factors for Criteria Pollutants and Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing.
ARMA. May 12, 2003.
4 Trumbore et al. Emission factors for
asphalt-related emissions in roofing manufacturing.
October 2005.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
emissions from these source categories
are acceptable, and that the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Based on
the reassessment of risk, the maximum
acute HQ screening value for the
categories is 0.5, based on an REL for
arsenic compounds. The HQ screening
value of 4 for formaldehyde in the risk
assessment performed for the proposal
is now less than 1 (0.3). Therefore, no
pollutant exceeded any acute health
benchmark (i.e., REL, AEGL, ERPG) in
our revised screening-level acute
assessment. More details on the revised
risk assessment is available in the
document, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule.
Regarding the comment about it being
unclear why the EPA estimated control
costs, as described in the proposed rule
preamble, published on May 2, 2019 (84
FR 18926), under the risk review, the
EPA follows 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) 5 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.
As explained in the proposed rule
preamble (84 FR 18926), the EPA
proposed that risks were acceptable for
5 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 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing. Therefore, the EPA
proceeded to the second step (i.e., the
ample margin of safety analysis) for
these source categories. Consistent with
the framework described above, in the
RTR proposal, under this second step,
the EPA considered all the health
information and other factors including
costs to determine whether or not any
revisions to the standards were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2).
As explained in the proposal preamble
and again in this preamble, we did not
identify any cost-effective controls or
other measures to reduce risks further.
Therefore, we proposed that the current
standards provide an ample margin of
safety and additional or revised
standards are not warranted.
Furthermore, as described in other
sections of this final rule preamble, after
considering the public comments and
revising some of our analyses, we
continue to conclude that risks are
acceptable and that the current NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety.
With regard to the derivation of our
cost estimates, we used methodologies
published in the EPA Air Pollution
Control Cost Manual.6 The EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual is widely
used by the EPA in developing cost
estimates for regulatory standards. The
cost algorithms are considered sufficient
for determining economic impacts and
whether controls are cost effective. The
manual’s cost algorithms were originally
developed from vendor information
(and in many cases, this involves
contact with hundreds of vendors and
the assimilation of large amounts of
data) and meant to apply to all
situations where the control device can
be used. The algorithms can also
provide site-specific costs by using sitespecific inputs, such as flow rate,
pollutants being controlled,
temperature, etc. Site-specific costs are
often difficult to obtain directly from
facilities and are frequently considered
proprietary by vendors. We maintain
that using the EPA Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual to estimate costs for
regulatory standards is appropriate.
Although industry average prices for
certain cost components in our analyses
have not been updated to one base year;
we updated these component costs to
2017 dollars using the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index.
Comment: One commenter disagreed
with the EPA’s use of a ‘‘low
confidence’’ Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) reference concentration
6 Available at: https://www.epa.gov/economicand-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/costreports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
(RfC) of 0.02 milligrams per cubic meter
(mg/m3) to assess health risk from HCl.
Instead, the commenter argued that the
2000 California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of
Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) value of 9
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)
(0.009 mg/m3) should be used to assess
chronic noncancer risk. The commenter
explained that the IRIS value was one
that IRIS had stated it planned to update
when additional data became available,
but that update has not occurred, and
that, in such circumstances, the EPA’s
own prioritization policy directs it to
use the best available science, which
would include the CalEPA OEHHA
value.
The commenter stated that, by not
using the CalEPA OEHHA value, the
EPA underestimates the chronic
noncancer risk from HCl. Additionally,
the commenter asserted that the EPA
did not attempt to evaluate the cancer
risk for HCl, and that the EPA has not
conducted a ‘‘complete evaluation and
determination under’’ the ‘‘IRIS program
for evidence of human carcinogenic
potential.’’ The commenter indicated
that the Court has held that the EPA
must analyze the carcinogenic potential
of HCl in order to ‘‘base its findings’’ of
no carcinogenic risk ‘‘on substantial
evidence,’’ Sierra Club v. EPA, 895 F.3d
1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2018), and that,
therefore, underestimating HCl
emissions impacts the EPA’s findings of
chronic noncancer and cancer risk. The
commenter argued that ignoring the
potential for carcinogenic risk from HCl
is arbitrary.
Response: For the CAA section
112(f)(2) risk reviews, we use doseresponse information that has been
obtained from various sources and
prioritized according to (1) conceptual
consistency with the EPA risk
assessment guidelines and (2) level of
peer review received. The prioritization
process is aimed at incorporating into
our assessments the best available
science with respect to dose-response
information. The recommendations are
based on the following sources: (1) The
EPA, (2) Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and (3)
CalEPA.7 In selecting the appropriate
chronic noncancer dose-response value
for HCl for use in the risk assessment,
7 Documentation of this approach is in the EPA
report titled Risk and Technology (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s
Science Advisory Board: Case Studies—MACT I
Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing. June 2009. EPA–452/R–09–006.
This approach is also documented in the risk
assessment technical support document for the RTR
NESHAP rulemaking (and included in the
rulemaking docket).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
in this case, the 1995 EPA IRIS RfC, we
followed this prioritization approach,
and we reviewed newer values as part
of that process. The 1995 EPA IRIS RfC
for HCl of 0.02 mg/m3 was based on the
following studies: Sellakumar et al.,
1985 8 and Albert et al., 1982.9 The
ATSDR has not established a chronic
noncancer dose-response value for HCl.
In 2000, CalEPA established a chronic
REL of 9 mg/m3 (9 × 10¥3 mg/m3) 10
based on Sellakumar et al., 1985.
CalEPA did not use newer data than the
EPA in establishing its chronic REL for
HCl.
In assessments completed prior to
2000, the EPA assigned confidence
ratings (low, medium, high) to the doseresponse value (e.g., RfC). The ratings
assignment was based generally on the
extent and robustness of the database
(e.g., number and types of different
toxicity test studies, quality of the
studies, suitability of the test results for
use in dose-response assessment). In the
process of assessing the toxicity of a
substance, if enough data from relevant
studies and of acceptable quality do not
exist, the EPA IRIS program does not
establish a dose-response value. For
HCl, the available data were judged
adequate for establishment of an RfC.11
In recognition of limitations in the
overall database and the principal
study, the resultant RfC for HCl was
given a confidence rating of low.
The EPA IRIS program has not
assigned a carcinogenicity weight of
evidence classification to HCl. Little
research has been conducted on the
carcinogenicity of HCl. (79 FR 75639.)
There are limited studies on the
carcinogenic potential of HCl in
humans. Of these, two occupational
studies failed to separate potential
exposure of HCl from exposure to other
substances shown to have carcinogenic
activity and are, therefore, not
appropriate to evaluate the carcinogenic
potential of HCl (Steenland et al., 1988,
Beaumont et al., 1986).12 13 Another
8 Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and
R.E. Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde
and hydrogen chloride in rats. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharmacol. 81: 401–406.
9 Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M.
Kuschner, N. Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982.
Gaseous Formaldehyde and Hydrogen Chloride
Induction of Nasal Cancer in Rats. J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 68(4): 597–603.
10 Technical Support Document for the Derivation
of Non-Cancer Reference Exposure Levels:
Appendix D.3, pp. 309–312. (https://oehha.ca.gov/
media/downloads/crnr/appendixd3final.pdf).
11 U.S. EPA. 1995. IRIS Chemical Assessment
Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. https://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/
documents/subst/0396_
summary.pdf#nameddest=rfc.
12 Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W.
Halperin, T. Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14535
occupational study failed to show
evidence of association between
exposure to HCl and lung cancer among
chemical manufacturing plant
employees (Bond et al., 1991).14 (80 FR
65488.) Consistent with the human data,
chronic inhalation studies in animals
have reported no carcinogenic responses
after chronic exposure to HCl (Albert et
al., 1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).15 16
(80 FR 65488.) Hydrogen chloride has
not been demonstrated to be genotoxic.
The genotoxicity literature consists of
two studies showing false positive
results potentially associated with low
pH in the test system (Morita et al.,
1992; Cifone et al., 1987).17 18 (80 FR
65488.)
The International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) also classifies agents
(chemicals and biologics) as to
carcinogenicity. The IARC classifies HCl
as ‘‘not classifiable as to its
carcinogenicity to humans.’’ 19 Of the
more than 1,000 agents classified by
IARC, no agents are classified as
‘‘probably not carcinogenic (IARC) to
humans.’’ 20
The Court decision cited by the
commenter, Sierra Club v. EPA, 895
F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), addressed the
basis for setting a health-based emission
limit for HCl under section 112(d)(4) of
the CAA, and not for making a
determination about risk acceptability
under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the
residual risk review?
As noted in the proposal, the EPA sets
standards under CAA section 112(f)(2)
cancer and exposure to acid mists. Br. J. of Ind.
Med. 45: 766–776.
13 Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom,
T. McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K.
Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin. 1987. Lung
cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid
mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911–921.
14 Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen
G.W. Lung cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure:
results from a nested case-control study of chemical
workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958–61.
15 Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M.
Kuschner, N. Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982.
Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride
induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 68(4): 597–603.
16 Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon
and R.E. Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for
formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in rats.
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401–406.
17 Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura.
1992. Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured
mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297–305.
18 Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi.
1987. Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency
at the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma
L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39–46.
19 IARC Monographs, Volume 54, https://
monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
mono54.pdf.
20 IARC Monographs, July 8, 2019 update. https://
monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14536
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to
determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that
considers all health information,
including risk estimation uncertainty,
and includes a presumptive limit on
maximum individual risk (MIR) of
‘‘approximately 1-in-10 thousand’’ (see
54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We
weigh all health risk measures and
factors in the risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer
MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute
noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer
risks, the distribution of cancer and
noncancer risks in the exposed
population, and the risk estimation
uncertainties. As described above, in the
second step, we also consider other
factors including costs and economic
impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular
decision.
Since proposal, we reanalyzed risk
after incorporating new emissions data
that were received for several emission
sources at two facilities; however, after
revising risk estimates using these new
emissions data, determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effects have not changed.
For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule and in section IV.A.2 of
this preamble, we determined that the
risks from both source categories are
acceptable, and the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Therefore,
the EPA is not revising the standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based
on the residual risk review, and the
Agency is readopting the existing
standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
B. Technology Review for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6),
the EPA proposed to conclude that no
revisions to the current standards are
necessary for asphalt loading racks and
asphalt storage tanks in the Asphalt
Processing source category and for
coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating
mixers, sealant and adhesive
applicators, and asphalt storage tanks in
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source category. We did not find any
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that could be
applied to asphalt loading racks, asphalt
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
storage tanks, coating mixers, saturators
(including wet loopers), coaters, sealant
applicators, or adhesive (laminate)
applicators and that could be used to
reduce emissions from asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities. The EPA also
did not identify any developments in
work practices, pollution prevention
techniques, or process changes that
could achieve emission reductions from
these emissions sources.
Also, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude that
no revisions to the current standards are
necessary for blowing stills in the
Asphalt Processing source category. We
did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control
technologies, nor any developments in
work practices, pollution prevention
techniques, or process changes to
control organic HAP from blowing stills
at asphalt processing facilities.
However, for owners or operators that
use a chlorinated catalyst in the blowing
still during asphalt processing, we
identified two potential HCl (an
inorganic HAP) emission reduction
options: (1) Installing a packed bed
scrubber at the outlet of the blowing still
(or at the outlet of the combustion
device controlling organic HAP
emissions); and (2) installing a dry
sorbent injection and fabric filter at the
outlet of the blowing still. In addition,
we considered whether it might be
feasible for facilities that need to use a
catalyst to only use non-chlorinated
substitute catalysts. However, we did
not identify a viable non-chlorinated
catalyst substitute. We also note that the
average capital costs for option 1 would
be about $2,480,000 per facility, the
average annualized costs would be
about $500,000 per facility, and the
average HCl cost would be about
$60,000 per ton. We also determined
that the costs for option 2 would be
higher than the costs for option 1.
Because the estimated risks due to HCl
emissions are low and based on the
relatively high costs per facility for each
of the options, we proposed to conclude
that neither of these options is necessary
for reducing HCl emissions from
blowing stills that use chlorinated
catalysts.
In addition, we solicited comment on
the relationship between the CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review and
the CAA section 112(f) residual risk
review. We solicited comment on
whether revisions to the NESHAP are
‘‘necessary,’’ as the term is used in CAA
section 112(d)(6), in situations where
the EPA has determined that CAA
section 112(d) standards evaluated
pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In other words, we
solicited comment on whether it is
‘‘necessary’’ to revise the standards
based on developments in technologies,
practices, or processes under CAA
section 112(d)(6) if remaining risks
associated with air emissions from a
source category have already been
reduced to levels that provide an ample
margin of safety under CAA section
112(f). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (‘‘The
Administrator shall review and revise as
necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emission
standards promulgated under [CAA
section 112] no less often than every 8
years.’’).
2. How did the technology review
change for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
Although the EPA proposed to
conduct a technology review for
previously unregulated HCl emissions
from blowing stills, we are withdrawing
all aspects of the technology review
proposal for HCl from blowing stills.
Furthermore, we are clarifying that
setting initial standards for previously
unregulated emission points or
pollutants is not part of the technology
review that is required under CAA
section 112(d)(6) (refer to section IV.B.3
of this preamble) and that it would be
contrary to the provisions and structure
of CAA section 112 to establish such
standards for the first time under CAA
section 112(d)(6). In short, under the
CAA, while the EPA has the discretion
(and authority) to set initial standards
for previously unregulated emissions at
the same time and in the same
rulemaking process that it conducts a
technology review under CAA section
112(d)(6), setting such initial standards
is not part of the technology review
required under CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing all remaining aspects
of the technology review as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technology review, and what are
our responses?
Comment: One commenter stated that
the EPA has avoided their obligation to
‘‘review and revise, as necessary (taking
into account developments in practices,
processes, and pollution control
technologies), emission standards
promulgated under this section no less
often than every 8 years’’ (CAA section
112(d)(6)), by refusing to demonstrate
that it has completed an effective
technology review and has assessed and
accounted for developments, which is
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter
said that the EPA did not comply with
the CAA section 112(d)(6) requirements
in conducting the technology review.
The commenter explained that the EPA
only reviewed information it already
had or technology it already mandated
from three sources of information and
did not look at state requirements,
foreign control methods, different
methods or brands of controls to see
which was most effective, efficient, or
reliable; requirements likely to promote
future technological progress; or facility
procedures or best practices, such as
best practices to mitigate malfunctions.
The commenter added that the EPA
should have requested information from
actual pollution control manufacturers
and distributors and provided the
information for notice and comment.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the EPA has failed to
meet the CAA legal obligation to
complete the technology review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories.
With respect to the information
underlying this review, in June 2017,
the EPA issued an ICR pursuant to CAA
section 114, to collect information from
facilities that are currently considered to
be part of the Asphalt Processing source
category and/or Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source category. The
responses to the CAA section 114 ICR
reflect air regulations of national, state,
and local jurisdictions. Companies
completed the survey for their facilities
and submitted responses to the EPA by
September 30, 2017. As part of the CAA
section 114 ICR, the EPA requested
information about process equipment,
control technologies, point and fugitive
emissions, and other aspects of facility
operations. Specifically, with regard to
the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, the
EPA asked each facility to ‘‘. . . provide
an operation date and a description of
any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies that
[the facility] implemented after the date
[the facility] demonstrated initial
compliance with either Subpart LLLLL
or subpart AAAAAAA that resulted in
an increase or decrease in HAP
emissions from the emission unit.’’ The
responses to this question identify
requirements likely to promote future
technological progress, facility
procedures, and best practices.
Furthermore, we asked specific
questions about APCDs, other methods
of control, and compliance methods
used by each facility for their blowing
stills, asphalt loading racks, asphalt
storage tanks, coating mixers, saturators
(including wet loopers), coaters, sealant
applicators, adhesive (laminate)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
applicators, and mineral handling and
storage facilities. The EPA reviewed and
compared the data received in response
to the CAA section 114 ICR to identify
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that have been
implemented by asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
Based on this analysis, facilities did not
report developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies. A
summary of this analysis is included in
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories Final, which is available in
the docket for this action.
We also reviewed the EPA’s
Reasonable Available Control
Technology (RACT), Best Available
Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
Clearinghouse (RBLC),21 which is a
database that contains information on
the best emission control technologies
that have been required by state, local,
and territorial air pollution control
agencies. The search identified three
facilities, and none of these facilities
have more stringent emission control
requirements than the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL, MACT standards. In
addition, we conducted site visits to two
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities subject to the
NESHAP (and one asphalt roofing
manufacturing facility not subject to the
NESHAP). These site visits did not
reveal any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies.
Furthermore, the EPA reviewed the
operating permits for all the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities that were major
sources and subject to the NESHAP.
These operating permits incorporate all
relevant local, state, or regional
emission limitations, as well as Federal
limitations. In almost all cases, the EPA
did not find local, state, or Regional
emission limitation that could be
compared to the emission limitations in
the current NESHAP (given unit basis
and format differences), and, thus, the
EPA did not identify limits that were
more stringent than the limits in the
current NESHAP,22 neither did we find
any facility using a control technology
that was not considered during
21 RACT/BACT/LAER apply to criteria pollutants
only. However, data in the RBLC are not limited to
sources subject to RACT, BACT, and LAER
requirements. Noteworthy prevention and control
technology decisions and information may be
included in the database even if they are not related
to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions.
22 In one case, we identified a less stringent stateonly VOC control efficiency requirement for an
incinerator controlling emissions from blowing
stills.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14537
development of the NESHAP and
reflected in the current standards.
Finally, the EPA is not aware of any
advances in emission control
technology that are being used
elsewhere and that are applicable to
these source categories. We are not
aware of any applicable advances in
emission control technology that are
being used in other countries. We did
not receive any comments from any air
pollution control manufacturers or from
the Institute of Clean Air Companies. No
commenters provided any data or
information on emissions control
techniques beyond those techniques
that we already have considered in
conducting this technology review. It
would not be feasible for the EPA to
examine different brands of emission
controls to see which was most
effective, efficient, or reliable, as
suggested by the commenter. That
information is not currently available to
the EPA, and even if it were, it would
be difficult, if not impossible, to
correlate that information with
emissions performance and develop
practical regulatory requirements.
Instead, the current MACT floors are
based on each type of process
equipment used at asphalt processing
facilities and on asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines. The majority of
data used for the MACT floor analysis
were obtained from responses to a
survey distributed by ARMA in 1995.
To identify the best performing sources
and amount of emission reduction, the
level of control for each piece of process
equipment was based on the type of
control device installed and the
operating characteristics of the control
device. After the initial compliance
demonstration, facilities using add-on
controls must comply with operating
limits to ensure the add-on controls
continue to be properly operated and
maintained and achieve the same level
of performance as during the
performance test. Facilities experiencing
deviations from the emission limits or
the operating limits must report these
deviations to the EPA, and the Agency
will then determine on a case-by-case
basis whether the deviation constitutes
a violation. Also, because of the
diversity of factors that could lead to a
malfunction in these source categories,
it would not be practical for the EPA to
prescribe the actions that must be taken
to reduce the frequency of malfunctions
or to minimize emissions in the event of
a malfunction. However, as part of the
required deviation record, owners and
operators must specify the cause of each
deviation, which could include a
malfunction period as a cause (e.g., any
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14538
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
malfunction that leads to a deviation
from an emission limit, operating limit,
opacity limit, or visible emission limit).
Comment: One commenter asserted
that they had submitted a petition for
rulemaking to the EPA, urging the EPA
to set an emission standard for HCl from
blowing stills that use chlorinated
catalyst and to follow CAA section
112(d)(2)–(3) requirements in doing so.
The commenter cited Petition of Natural
Resources Defense Council & Sierra
Club to Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson, at 13 (January 14, 2009). The
commenter contended that the EPA has
provided no formal response to that
petition for this or any source category
and instead used CAA section 112(d)(6)
rulemakings to add standards for
previously unregulated HAP emissions
sources on a source category-by-category
basis.23
The commenter claimed that the EPA
has failed to satisfy the CAA because it
has failed to recognize the need to set
emission standards for currently
unrestricted HAP—such as HCl—which
is ‘‘necessary’’ and required by the CAA.
The commenter added that, in this
rulemaking, the EPA must review and
follow the CAA and existing caselaw to
ensure it sets a numerical limit for HCl
and every other regulated HAP that
satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2)–(3) and
(d)(6).
The commenter concluded that the
best-performing sources emit no HCl
and the EPA should have set the floor
based on the best-performing sources.
The commenter noted that HCl
emissions from blowing stills account
for 55 percent of emissions and no
facility controls these emissions. The
commenter pointed out that 37 out of 91
blowing stills at asphalt manufacturing
plants use chloride-based catalysts,
which cause HCl emissions. The
commenter added that the EPA
acknowledged that over 12 percent of
blowing stills do not use a catalyst that
emits HCl. This commenter objected to
the EPA’s decision not to regulate HCl
emissions and objected to the bases for
the EPA’s decision, which include that:
(1) Sources do not use control devices,
and (2) chlorinated catalysts cannot be
23 The commenter cited the following
rulemakings as examples where EPA has added
standards for previously unregulated HAP
emissions sources for certain emission points:
Primary Lead NESHAP, Final Rule, 76 FR 70834
(November 15, 2011); Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP, 74 FR 55670 (October 28, 2009); Generic
MACT NESHAP, Final Rule, 79 FR 60898 (October
8, 2014); Polymers & Resins Group IV; Pesticide
Active Ingredient Production; Polyether Polyols
Prod. NESHAP, Final Rule, 79 FR 17340 (March 27,
2014); Polymers & Resins I NESHAP, Final Rule, 76
FR 22566, 22569 (April 21, 2011); and Oil and Gas
NESHAP, 77 FR 49490, 49492, 49530 (August 16,
2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
prohibited because doing so would
require all manufacturers to use higherquality asphalt flux feedstock, and
higher-quality feedstock is not
consistently available to all sources. The
commenter cited the decision in
National Lime Association v. EPA, 233
F.3d 625, at 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000), stating
that the EPA had a clear statutory
obligation to set emission standards for
each listed HAP. The commenter added
that the EPA’s assertions, that changes
in non-technology factors were not
appropriate or viable, cannot justify a
no-control floor. The commenter added
that the EPA has a statutory obligation
to set emission limits regardless of
whether the best-performing sources in
a given category are currently using air
pollution control technology to limit
their emissions. The commenter stated
that if it fails to set emission limits for
each HAP, the EPA will fail to complete
the review and revision rulemaking as
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires and will
violate the Court’s order in California
Communities Against Toxics v. Pruitt,
241 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.D.C. 2017).
The commenter asserted that an HCl
standard should have been set based on
the performance of scrubbers used for
other sources, noting specifically
scrubbers reflected in the control
options for the Hospital, Medical, and
Infectious Waste Incinerators New
Source Performance Standards. The
commenter added that this is a
development in practices, processes,
and control technologies and the EPA
has no valid basis under CAA section
112(d)(6) for not revising the standards
to reflect or take this development into
account. The commenter added that
because the EPA has identified spray
dryer absorbers as an additional type of
control for HCl, these controls must be
evaluated as ‘‘developments’’ that could
strengthen emission reductions of HCl.
Furthermore, the commenter contended
that there are also developments in
monitoring of acid gases—particularly
HCl. The commenter noted that the EPA
has required monitoring of HCl in
multiple national standards in recent
years, and the EPA should strengthen
monitoring in this rule due to these
demonstrated developments.
Another commenter argued that
because the EPA identified blowing still
technologies that emit no HCl, a
standard for HCl emissions from new
blowing stills should be established at
zero. The commenter stated that while
the EPA does ‘‘not anticipate any air
quality impacts’’ from these emissions,
this does not justify allowing emissions
greater than the MACT floor.
Response: CAA section 112(d)(6)
requires the EPA to review and revise,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emission
standards promulgated under this
section. We do not agree with the
commenter’s assertion that the EPA
must establish new standards for
unregulated emission points or
pollutants as part of a technology review
of the existing standards. The EPA reads
CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited
provision requiring the Agency to, at
least every 8 years, review the emission
standards already promulgated in the
NESHAP and to revise those standards
as necessary taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies. Nothing in
CAA section 112(d)(6) directs the
Agency, as part of or in conjunction
with the mandatory 8-year technology
review, to develop new emission
standards to address HAP or emission
points for which standards were not
previously promulgated. As shown by
the statutory text and the structure of
CAA section 112, CAA section 112(d)(6)
does not impose upon the Agency any
obligation to promulgate emission
standards for previously unregulated
emissions.
When the EPA establishes standards
for previously unregulated emissions,
we would not establish those initial
standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) but instead would establish
the standards under one of the
provisions that govern initial standard
setting—CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)
or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA
section 112(d)(4) or CAA section 112(h).
Establishing emissions standards under
these provisions of the CAA involves a
different analytical approach from
reviewing emissions standards under
CAA section 112(d)(6).
Though the EPA has discretion (and
authority) to develop standards under
CAA section 112(d)(2) through (4) and
CAA section 112(h) for previously
unregulated pollutants at the same time
as the Agency completes the CAA
section 112(d)(6) review, any such
action is not part of the CAA section
112(d)(6) review, and there is no
obligation to undertake such actions at
the same time as the CAA section
112(d)(6) review. For this rulemaking,
we do not have sufficient data to
establish an emissions standard that
reasonably reflects the performance of
the best sources pursuant to the
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3).24 We have data from one
24 We also note that, given the currently available
information, establishing standards for HCl from
blowing stills under CAA section 112(d)(4) or (h)
would not be appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
emission test from a single facility and
it would take significant time, well
beyond the court-ordered deadline for
completing this rulemaking, to acquire
sufficient additional data and other
emissions information and perform the
analyses needed to establish an
appropriate standard under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). Further, given the
court-ordered deadline of March 13,
2020, we do not have time to collect the
needed data and information. Therefore,
it is impracticable for the EPA to
establish new standards for previously
unregulated emissions as part of this
rulemaking.25
Comment: One commenter contended
that the EPA must evaluate and require
use of the Digital Camera Opacity
Technique (DCOT) as a method for
assessing and demonstrating
compliance with the opacity limits in
the emission standards. The commenter
noted that the Agency has required use
of the DCOT in the Ferromanganese and
Silicomanganese Production NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX) and
supported its use because it provides a
photographic record of each of the
opacity readings, allows for third-party
evaluation, and provides better
documentation of fugitive emissions.
The commenter added that the EPA
determined the DCOT is a development
in monitoring and will improve the
facility’s, the EPA’s, and the state’s
ability to assure compliance with the
standards. The commenter stated that
the EPA noted that the DCOT provides
reliable, unbiased opacity readings and
required this rather than the human eyebased, visual-only smoke assessment
protocol of EPA Method 9. The
commenter concluded that because
DCOT is a ‘‘development’’ within the
meaning of CAA section 112(d)(6), the
EPA must take it into account and
require use of it in this rule. The
commenter contended that failing to do
so would also be unlawful, arbitrary,
and capricious.
Response: We are not finalizing a
requirement to use DCOT in place of
EPA Method 9 for this rule. The DCOT
system, as required in the Ferroalloys
rule, uses a handheld American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
D7520–16 compliant camera system,
which was only available from a single
vendor at the time. There are currently
25 While not related to the technology review, we
note that related to the residual risk review, we
found the risks associated with the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source categories to be acceptable and that the
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety in the absence of additional CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) standards for unregulated
pollutants. The HCl emissions from blowing stills
were included in the residual risk analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
no vendors supplying the portable
ASTM D7520–16 compliant systems.
The only DCOT systems currently
available are customized fixed-location
camera systems. We conclude that it is
inappropriate to require the fixed
location camera systems for this
industry due to the relatively high cost
associated with emplacing the large
number of individual camera units that
would be needed, one at each emission
point for the intermittent opacity
readings, in addition to the difficulty in
positioning the fixed location cameras
to obtain a suitable background and
orientation with the sun and plume
throughout the day at existing source
locations. Further, the advantage of the
DCOT system, as discussed in the
preamble of the final Ferroalloys rule, is
in having better documentation ‘‘. . . in
this specific case where fugitive
emissions are driving the risk . . .’’
Fugitive emissions are not the driving
risk for the NESHAP for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories.
Nevertheless, the EPA is not precluding
ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere, from being used to comply
with the opacity standards in this rule
and, as proposed, has included this
method with conditions as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9.
Comment: One commenter stated the
EPA should update its regulations
regarding asphalt storage tanks to
require controls of all storage tanks. The
commenter added that the EPA
acknowledged that currently 428 out of
540 asphalt storage tanks are controlled
using a packed bed scrubber or a
thermal incinerator. The remaining 112
are uncontrolled and vent straight to the
atmosphere. The commenter stated that
the EPA should explain why it is not
necessary to extend these control
requirements to the remainder of the
storage tanks.
Response: Based on information
received in response to the CAA section
114 ICR, we have determined that there
are no uncontrolled asphalt storage
tanks that are subject to the
requirements for Group 2 storage tanks
under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL, MACT standards. To clarify, it
is true that, based on the CAA section
114 ICR, the EPA initially identified 428
asphalt storage tanks that are fixed roof
tanks that vent to either a combustion
control device or to a PM control device
and another 112 asphalt storage tanks
that are fixed roof tanks or horizontal
tanks that vent to the atmosphere
(uncontrolled). However, we also stated
in our proposed technology review that
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14539
the 112 uncontrolled asphalt storage
tanks are either considered Group 2
under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL, MACT standards or operate at
an area source of HAP. After additional
evaluation, we determined that only 11
of the 112 uncontrolled asphalt storage
tanks that we identified from our CAA
section 114 ICR could potentially be
subject to the requirements for Group 2
storage tanks under the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL, MACT standards
(because the other 101 tanks operate at
an area source of HAP and are not
subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL, MACT standards). Of the 11
uncontrolled Group 2 asphalt storage
tanks, six are reported as shut down,
and after further investigation using
responses from an industry-wide ICR on
petroleum refineries (refer to section II.C
of 79 FR 36886 and 36887), we
determined that the remaining five are
located at one petroleum refinery, have
low vapor pressures (e.g., about 3.38E–
05 pounds per square inch), and are
subject to either 40 CFR part 60, subpart
UU, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart Ka, Kb,
or CC (and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL). Finally, we want to clarify that
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL, requires that Group 2 tanks be
operated such that exhaust gases are
limited to 0-percent opacity. Any
control device or other method that can
meet the 0-percent opacity standard for
storage tanks can be used, and it is
possible that some facilities may not
need a control device to meet the
opacity limit.
Comment: One commenter noted that
in the Petroleum Refinery Sector final
rule at 80 FR 75178, 75193, and 75194
(December 1, 2015), the EPA recognized
as a ‘‘development’’ the availability of
fenceline monitoring technology and
methods and, therefore, required all
facilities to implement these tools. The
commenter added that the use of
fenceline monitoring, such as the
passive samplers or absorbent tubes that
the EPA required using EPA Methods
325A and 325B, reflects an up-to-date
method to evaluate leaks of HAP. The
commenter noted that although in the
Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule the EPA
chose the chemical benzene as the
analyte, the tools the EPA required for
refineries can monitor for other
pollutants as well. The commenter
added that since 2015, there have been
even further ‘‘developments’’ in
fenceline monitoring, and local and
state jurisdictions have required
implementation of real-time fenceline
monitoring, using various types of
technology selected by the facility from
approved methods and presented for
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14540
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
public notice and comment. The
commenter concluded that the EPA
would violate CAA section 112(d)(6) by
failing to consider and account for the
‘‘developments’’ in fenceline
monitoring, and pollution controls
here—particularly where data show
significant health risks from emitted
pollutants.
Response: We are not finalizing any
requirements for fenceline monitoring
in the final rule. The passive samplers
and adsorbent tubes of EPA Methods
325A and 325B are a method of
evaluating potential fugitive and area
source emissions of VOC and are not
suitable for all HAP. Fenceline
monitoring, as discussed in the
preamble to the proposed Petroleum
Refinery rule (79 FR 36920), may
identify significant increases in
emissions, but small increases in
emissions are unlikely to impact the
fenceline concentrations. The four
refineries subject to the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL, MACT standards are
also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC, and currently have fenceline
monitoring in place under that rule. The
potential for fugitive volatile organic
HAP emissions at the remaining four
subject facilities not collocated at a
refinery is vastly lower as a result of the
reduced amount of piping and the
reduced storage of volatile organic
materials. The EPA disagrees with the
commenter that the data show
significant health risks from emitted
pollutants. As noted in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories in
Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, the
maximum cancer risk from category
emissions is less than 1-in-1 million,
and the maximum whole facility cancer
risk is 9-in-1 million, driven by noncategory refinery emissions, at a facility
which already has fenceline monitoring
due to the Petroleum Refinery rule.
Comment: We received two comments
in response to our request for comments
on the relationship between the
technology review conducted under
CAA section 112(d)(6) and the residual
risk analysis under CAA section
112(f)(2) and whether it is necessary for
the EPA to amend rules based on CAA
section 112(d) to reflect the results of
the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology
review if the results of the residual risk
analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2)
show that the current rule provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. One commenter
argued that the EPA must complete the
technology review and propose
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
standards based on the findings of that
review, regardless of the results of the
residual risk analysis. Another
commenter argued technology reviews
need not consider whether to reduce
emission limits in response to
developments in emission control
technologies as long as the health-based
ample margin of safety determination
remains unchanged. For a more
thorough summary of these comments,
refer to the comment summary and
response document, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Risk and
Technology Review for Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Response: The EPA is not taking final
action on the proposed interpretation
that the EPA take into account in the
CAA section 112(d)(6) technology
review the results of a residual risk
analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2).
Instead, the EPA is finalizing our
determination that no revision to the
NESHAP is necessary pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) based on our
consideration of developments in
practices, processes, and control
technologies, as explained above.
Because we are not relying on the
potential interpretation that was
discussed in the proposal preamble in
our final action, we are not addressing
the comments we received regarding the
relationship between the technology
review conducted under CAA section
112(d)(6) and the residual risk review
conducted under CAA section 112(f)(2).
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technology review?
The EPA is not finalizing the
technology review as proposed with
regard to HCl emissions standards for
blowing stills. As discussed in section
IV.B of this preamble, we determined
that it is not appropriate to establish
new standards for previously
unregulated sources or pollutants under
the technology review. Pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing all
required aspects of the technology
review as proposed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that there are no
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that warrant
revisions to the standards. We evaluated
all of the comments on the EPA’s
technology review and we determined
no changes to the review are needed.
More information concerning our
technology review is in the
memorandum titled Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories Final,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in the docket for this action, and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR
18939).
C. Amendments Addressing Emissions
During Periods of SSM
1. What amendments did we propose to
address emissions during periods of
SSM?
We proposed removing and revising
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that
standards apply at all times. More
information concerning our proposal on
SSM can be found in the proposed rule
(84 FR 18939).
2. How did the SSM provisions change
since proposal?
Since proposal, the SSM provisions
have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the SSM revisions and what are our
responses?
Comment: One commenter disagreed
with the EPA’s claims that they have
discretion to set standards for
malfunctions ‘‘where feasible.’’ The
commenter contended that the CAA
denies the EPA authority to set
malfunction-based standards or
exemptions; and cited CAA section
112(d), (h), and CAA section 302(k). The
commenter also cited a reconsideration
petition for the Refinery Sector Rule,
where malfunction standards were
developed, that the Court held in
abeyance.
Response: The EPA disagrees that it
lacks the authority to set standards for
malfunctions where feasible but notes
that the EPA did not propose separate
standards for periods of malfunction.
The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is
consistent with CAA section 112 and is
a reasonable interpretation of the
statute. At proposal, we explained our
interpretation of CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored
into the development of CAA section
112 standards, and noted that this
reading has been upheld as reasonable
by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606–10 (2016). (84 FR
18946.)
The EPA further explained that
‘‘[a]lthough no statutory language
compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the
discretion to do so where feasible.’’ (84
FR 18946). We explained that, ‘‘[t]he
EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting work
practice standards for a particular type
of malfunction and, if so, whether the
EPA has sufficient information to
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
identify the relevant best performing
sources and establish a standard for
such malfunctions’’ (84 FR 18946).
The EPA is not finalizing separate
standards for periods of malfunction. As
explained at proposal, in the unlikely
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). If the EPA determines in
a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of
an emission standard is warranted, 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 (84 FR 18946).
Comment: One commenter objected to
the incorporation of 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) because it removes the
requirement for a source to correct a
malfunction within a specified time
period. The commenter stated that the
incorporation of this provision into the
rule can result in increased emissions;
and it is unlikely that this potential
increase in emissions was accounted for
in the risk assessment conducted by the
EPA. The commenter recommended the
provision not be incorporated into the
final rule, and instead sources should be
required to initiate corrective action as
soon as practicable but no later than 72
hours from the start of the malfunction.
Response: The final rule does not
incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii)
as they are no longer applicable. The
EPA is finalizing as proposed 40 CFR
63.8685(b), which incorporates the
general duty to minimize emissions at
all times. The finalized regulatory
language at 40 CFR 63.8685(b)
characterizes what the general duty
entails during periods of SSM. Since the
EPA is eliminating the SSM exemption
and the standards are applicable at all
times, there is no need to distinguish
among normal operations, startup and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
shutdown, and malfunction events in
describing the general duty.
Comment: One commenter said that
because this rulemaking is being
conducted on a shorter-than-normal
timetable due to judicial deadlines, they
did not have sufficient time to
adequately study the proposed revisions
to SSM requirements and are unable to
respond to the EPA’s request for
recommendations on possible
approaches. The commenter asserted
that different emission standards should
be adopted to reflect the realities of
different operating conditions and
reserves the right to propose such
standards at a later date. The commenter
stated that despite the EPA’s
interpretation of the Sierra Club v. EPA
Court ruling, it is an unsupportable
position to require emissions sources
undergoing a condition of startup,
shutdown or malfunction to comply
with an emission standard developed to
reflect normal operations. The
commenter said that even to the extent
that an acceptable work practice
standard can be developed for startup
and shutdown emissions, the use of
‘‘enforcement discretion’’ during
periods of malfunction (when emissions
cannot be readily controlled) fails to
qualify as an attainable regulatory
standard.
The commenter also stated that if the
EPA decides to finalize its proposal to
eliminate the SSM exemptions, then
they support the EPA’s proposed
revisions to Table 7 addressing the
General Provision requirement to
develop an SSM Plan and related
provisions. The commenter also agrees
with the EPA’s proposed revisions to
eliminate requirements that are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant consistent with the
elimination of SSM provisions.
Response: The final rule text at 40
CFR 63.8685(b) sets forth the general
duty to minimize emissions, and states
that, ‘‘[a]t all times, you 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 regulatory text further explains that
‘‘[t]he general duty to minimize
emissions does not require you to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions
if levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved.’’ Id.
As explained at proposal and as
discussed earlier in this preamble (in
response to another comment we
received), in the unlikely event that a
source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d)
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14541
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). If the EPA determines in
a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of
an emission standard is warranted, 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 summary, the EPA’s
interpretation of the CAA and, in
particular, CAA section 112, is
reasonable and encourages practices
that will avoid malfunctions.
Administrative and judicial procedures
for addressing exceedances of the
standards fully recognize that violations
may occur despite good faith efforts to
comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v.
EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016) (84
FR 18946).
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions to SSMrelated Requirements?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule (84 FR
18939), we determined that these
amendments remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. Therefore,
we are finalizing the amendments to
remove and revise provisions related to
SSM, as proposed.
D. Technical Amendments to the MACT
Standards
1. What other amendments did we
propose for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
We proposed to add an option at 40
CFR 63.8689(d) and Table 2 to subpart
LLLLL of part 63 to allow the use of
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14542
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
manufacturers’ specifications to
establish the maximum pressure drop
across the control device used to
comply with the PM standards. We also
proposed to add a footnote to Table 2 to
subpart LLLLL of part 63, the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP, to allow
owners and operators to use the
performance test average inlet
temperature and apply an operating
margin of +20 percent to determine
maximum inlet gas temperature of a
control device used to comply with the
PM standards. Furthermore, we
proposed a requirement at 40 CFR
63.8691(e) that periodic performance
tests be conducted at least once every 5
years for each APCD used to comply
with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible
emission standards.
We also proposed that owners and
operators submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports,
performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports
through the EPA’s CDX using the
CEDRI, and we proposed two broad
circumstances in which we may provide
an extension to these requirements. We
proposed at 40 CFR 63.8693(h) that an
extension may be warranted due to
outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI that
precludes an owner or operator from
accessing the system and submitting
required reports. We also proposed at 40
CFR 63.8639(i) that an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event,
such as an act of nature, act of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazards beyond the control of the
facility.
Finally, we proposed numerous
provisions clarifying text or correcting
typographical errors, grammatical
errors, and cross-reference errors. These
editorial corrections and clarifications
are summarized in Table 4 of the
proposal. See 54 FR 18951 and 18952.
2. How did the other amendments for
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source
categories change since proposal?
Instead of using manufacturers’
specifications or a performance test to
establish a maximum pressure drop
across the control device used to
comply with the PM standards as
proposed, we are finalizing a
requirement that requires owners and
operators to establish a pressure drop
range (i.e., a minimum and a maximum
pressure drop) across the PM control
device with the option to either use
manufacturers’ specifications or a
performance test to establish the range.
Also, although we are finalizing the
proposed requirement that allows
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
owners and operators to apply an
operating margin of +20 percent to the
performance test average inlet
temperature to determine maximum
inlet gas temperature of a control device
used to comply with the PM standards,
in the final rule, we are clarifying the
operating margin applies to
temperatures expressed in units of
degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit.
Furthermore, in the final rule
amendments, we have added language
to the periodic performance testing
requirements to allow facilities to
synchronize their periodic performance
testing schedule with a previously
conducted emission test. Since
proposal, the electronic reporting
requirements and the technical and
editorial corrections in Table 4 of the
proposal (see 54 FR 18951 and 18952)
have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the other amendments for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories, and
what are our responses?
Comment: One commenter argued
that the proposed amendment to 40 CFR
63.8689(d) establishing maximum
pressure drop as an operating limit for
particulate control devices is not a
reliable indicator of continued
compliance because holes or other
defects in the filter bags will result in
decreased pressure drop and an increase
in emissions.
Response: The EPA agrees that the
maximum pressure drop is insufficient
in itself to demonstrate ongoing
compliance, as malfunctions such as
holes, leaks, and even bypass of the
control device would not be indicated
by an exceedance of the pressure drop
maximum. The inclusion of pressure
drop minimum, creating an operating
range for the pressure drop, provides a
more complete indication of filter bank
performance. Therefore, to better assure
proper operation of the particulate
control device, we are requiring in the
final rule at item 3 of Table 2 and item
3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria
for each particulate control device
include both a maximum and minimum
pressure drop operating limit as
opposed to solely a maximum pressure
drop operating limit. The addition of a
minimum limitation to the operating
range of the PM control device mirrors
the approach in the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area
source NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an
indication of breakthrough or bypass of
the control device, as a drop in the
differential pressure below that
established by the manufacturer’s
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
specification would indicate that
potentially either the control device has
been inadvertently bypassed (leaking
around the filter) or possible tearing or
distortion of the filter has occurred. As
discussed later in this preamble (in
response to another comment we
received), we are also clarifying in the
final rule at item 12 of Table 3
procedures for establishing the
maximum and minimum pressure drop
operating limits.
Comment: Two commenters argued
that the proposed amendment to 40 CFR
63.8689(d) allowing the use of
manufacturers’ recommendations to
establish operating limits for particulate
control devices is not a reliable
indicator of continued compliance.
One commenter said that control
system vendors may incorporate
components from various manufacturers
in their systems and the manufacturers
may be unaware of the configuration.
The commenter also said that control
systems may also be reconfigured from
time to time to reflect changes in the
manufacturing process or the raw
materials used, and manufacturers are
unable to predict these changes.
Similarly, another commenter asserted
that the revisions change the limit from
a demonstrated point to an assumed
point of compliance. The commenter
stated that manufacturer specifications
may show where a control device
should operate within compliance but
are not sufficient to show whether a
device is operating within compliance.
One commenter contended that the
change was proposed in response to
industry’s claim that tests to capture the
maximum pressure drop and gas
temperature are difficult due to their
dependence on ambient temperature
and operating life of the filter. The
commenter added that the EPA
previously acceded to industry requests
for pressure limits but concluded that
temperature was too important in
evaluating emissions, because emissions
are temperature dependent. The
commenter added that the EPA made
the change based on cost and cited the
EPA’s cost memorandum, which reports
that the switch will save industry nearly
half a million dollars, primarily by
avoiding having to change out its filters
as often. The commenter concluded that
industry asked the EPA to save it some
money by loosening its standards, and
the EPA complied.
A commenter said that the EPA
neither cites any authority, nor supplies
a reasoned explanation to demonstrate
how this change satisfies the CAA. The
commenter added that the EPA may not
change the standards without
demonstrating how the revised standard
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2) through
(3) and the EPA has no authority to
weaken the existing standard under
CAA section 112(d)(6) or otherwise. The
commenter concluded that the EPA may
not use cost to set or weaken floor
standards under CAA section 112(d)(3)
or to weaken standards below the
‘‘maximum achievable degree of
emission reduction’’ under CAA section
112(d)(2).
A commenter alleged that the EPA
failed to provide the emission and
health impacts of the revisions or the
scientific or engineering basis for the
decision. The commenter added that the
EPA did not explain how or whether it
validated industry claims that actually
running tests created difficulties due to
scheduling, whether this change risks
an increase in malfunctions or
emissions, the impact on the
effectiveness of filters when not
switching them more frequently, and
why manufacturer specifications are
sufficient to fit facilities that may vary
in their ambient conditions, in their
equipment, and in their production. The
commenter added that by not providing
these analyses, the EPA has deprived
the public of the opportunity to file
meaningful comments on the change,
which is a violation of notice-andcomment rulemaking.
Response: The EPA agrees that for
some control technologies,
manufacturers’ specifications may not
be sufficient to determine operating
limits; however, manufacturers’
specifications in conjunction with the
periodic performance tests are sufficient
to demonstrate compliance for the
operation of filter banks such as those
used in this source category (where the
replaceable parts are limited to the
filters themselves and the induced draft
fan). Specifically, the EPA disagrees that
the use of manufacturers’ specifications
for the maximum pressure drop is not
a reliable indicator of filter bank
performance at the upper end of filter
bank pressure drop. The EPA further
disagrees that the use of manufacturers’
specifications in setting the maximum
pressure drop is a loosening of the
standard. The efficiency of a filter bank
increases as the pressure drop increases
through use because the deposition of
material on the filter forms a layer of
dust that decreases the effective pore
size and increases capture efficiency.
The purpose of a maximum pressure
drop as a regulatory limit in the case of
a filter bank is to prevent overloading of
the filter, which may eventually cause
breakthrough or result in structural
damage to the filter or a possible bypass
of the control device. The use of
manufacturers’ specifications as an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
option for setting the operating range
allows for a facility to remain in
compliance with the operating limits
when the filter is replaced, because that
is the moment at which the pressure
drop of a properly functioning filter
bank is the lowest. As stated in our
proposal, allowing use of
manufacturers’ specifications to
establish operating limits provides
flexibility and alleviates the need for a
facility to have to retest the PM control
device to reestablish new operating
limits due to the inability of a source to
‘‘dial in’’ the differential pressure of
their control device for a particular
performance test as the differential
pressure increases over time as a result
of particulate deposition. Finally, as
discussed previously in this preamble
(in response to another comment), we
are requiring in the final rule at item 3
of Table 2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the
operating criteria for each particulate
control device include both a maximum
and minimum pressure drop as opposed
to solely a maximum pressure drop
operating limit. Therefore, in
consideration of this comment and in
order to provide additional flexibility,
we are clarifying in the final rule at 40
CFR 63.8689(d) that facilities may either
use the manufacturers’ specifications or
a performance test to set each operating
limit. For example, facilities may choose
to establish the minimum pressure drop
operating limit using the manufacturer’s
specifications and choose to establish
the maximum pressure drop operating
limit using a performance test. In this
example, the facility could use the
performance test to demonstrate that it
can still meet the emission limit beyond
the maximum pressure drop
recommended by the manufacturer’s
specifications.
Comment: One commenter supported
allowing facilities a 20-percent margin
of compliance on the average inlet
temperature of a PM control device
other than a thermal oxidizer. The
commenter stated that it is typically
necessary to schedule tests at least 1 to
2 months in advance to assure the
availability of stack testing contractors.
The commenter also agreed with the
EPA that it is impractical to schedule
testing at times of the year when
maximum temperatures will occur
because ambient temperatures cannot be
precisely predicted in advance. The
commenter stated that they appreciate
that the EPA recognizes the variations in
operating conditions that facilities may
routinely experience consistent with the
proper operation of such control devices
within the manufacturer’s
specifications. However, the commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14543
suggested that the EPA clarify this 20percent allowance applies to
temperatures expressed in units of
degrees Fahrenheit because the
application of a 20-percent margin to
temperature expressed in other units of
measure would not result in the same
temperature.
On the contrary, two other
commenters opposed allowing facilities
a 20-percent margin of compliance on
the average inlet temperature of a PM
control device other than a thermal
oxidizer.
One commenter disagreed with the
EPA’s claims that the change addresses
the high impact of ambient conditions
on the inlet temperature and removes
some of the scheduling uncertainty
while still accounting for the
temperature dependence of emissions.
The commenter contended that the
difficulty industry faces is in trying to
capture the maximum gas inlet
temperature at which they can achieve
compliance, which is the maximum
point at which that facility can show it
can operate while being in compliance.
The commenter contended that the 20percent extra allowance for temperature
is a malfunction buffer and the EPA is
statutorily barred from creating a
malfunction exemption, and they cited
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1028
(D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing CAA sections
112 and 302(k)).
Additionally, the commenter
contended that the EPA did not include
an analysis that explains why it chose
to add the 20-percent margin for
temperature limits, the impact that this
will have, and why this change to its
prior standards is justified by the best
available science. The commenter
asserted that the EPA needs to also cite
its authority for the proposed change,
demonstrate how its proposal stays
within the bounds of that authority, and
explain and show its work, so that the
public can evaluate and comment on it.
Similarly, another commenter said the
20-percent extra allowance for
temperature is unsupported by any data.
A commenter stated that where
condensable PM, including high boiling
point asphalt components, is present,
control efficiency is affected by the
vapor pressure of the components, and
emissions will increase at higher
temperatures. The commenter suggested
that facilities that are unable to maintain
the operating limits established during a
successful performance test conducted
in the winter should be required to
conduct an additional performance test
in the summer to establish a seasonal
operating limit. Further, the commenter
said that there is no rationale to allow
a 20-percent margin for facilities that
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14544
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
have conducted their performance tests
in the summer. Additionally, the
commenter pointed out that it is unclear
whether the risk assessment included
these potentially increased emissions (of
condensable PM due to higher control
device operating temperatures) and
called attention to the statement in the
preamble (84 FR 18952) that no air
quality impacts are anticipated. The
commenter said this statement in the
preamble incorrectly ignores the
increased emissions due to higher
control device operating temperatures
that would be allowed in the proposed
amendments.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s assessment that the
proposed 20-percent extra allowance on
the inlet gas temperature limit of the PM
control device is a malfunction buffer.
Malfunction is defined in 40 CFR 63.2
as ‘‘any 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 which causes, or has the
potential to cause, the emission
limitations in an applicable standard to
be exceeded.’’ The potential
temperature exceedance being
addressed by this provision is not a
failure to operate in a normal or usual
manner, but a normal variation of inlet
temperature in accordance with natural
temperature variation. The temperature
at the inlet to these PM control devices
is highly dependent on the ‘‘sweep’’ air
from the process area, a nontemperature controlled environment.
The inlet temperature, thus, swings over
the course of a day and through the
seasons based upon the ambient
temperature. Facilities are not equipped
to modulate the inlet temperature. The
issue facilities face is not one of testing
in the winter and, thus, being out of
compliance in the summer, as there is
no lower temperature limit being set
and facilities are not testing in the
winter, but of trying to accurately
predict the hottest day of the next 5
summer weeks in advance to be sure
that the temperature at the inlet is at its
peak during the test event. An 85
degrees Fahrenheit day instead of an
anticipated 95 degrees Fahrenheit day is
sufficient to cause potential issues in
the setting of maximum temperature
limitations, as facilities do not have a
mechanism for controlling the inlet
temperature. The EPA has used
operating margins in the setting of
control device operating parameter
limits for certain other rules such as 40
CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB,
NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate
Fertilizers Production Plants,
respectively, where the daily average
differential pressure across an absorber
and the flow rate of the liquid to each
absorber or the secondary voltage for a
wet electrostatic precipitator is ±20
percent of the baseline average; 40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLL, NESHAP for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry, where the temperature of the
inline kiln/raw mill during startup/
shutdown may exceed the temperature
limit by 10 percent; and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRR, NESHAP for Secondary
Aluminum Production, where the flow
rate of the capture/collection system
indicators is maintained at greater than
90 percent of the flow rate measured
during the performance test.
The EPA anticipates no increases in
emissions as a result of the change in
the mechanism of determining the
maximum allowable inlet temperature.
As discussed above, facilities have no
control over the inlet temperature; the
temperature of the sweep air to a large
extent defines the inlet temperature.
Facilities will not be increasing the inlet
operating temperature as a result of this
change but will be better able to
schedule their periodic performance test
as a result. Facilities will likely
continue to aim to perform their
performance tests at the highest
temperature possible in order to best
insulate themselves from potentially
exceeding their maximum temperature
limit as a result of higher ambient
temperatures. The inclusion of the
periodic performance test will also help
ensure that emissions are maintained
below the emission limit through the
recurring measurement of actual
emissions.
The EPA agrees that a clarification of
which temperature scale the
temperature is to be determined is
necessary because the application of a
20-percent margin to temperature
expressed in units other than degrees
Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit would
result in too large of an operating limit
window (e.g., although 305 Kelvin is
equal to about 90 degrees Fahrenheit, 20
percent of 305 Kelvin is very different
from 20 percent of 90 degrees
Fahrenheit). Therefore, the EPA is
specifying in the final rule at item 12 of
Table 3 that the temperature must be
measured in units of degrees Celsius or
degrees Fahrenheit. We acknowledge
that the use of Celsius will result in a
slightly more conservative temperature
range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit less when
compared to the corresponding
Fahrenheit range), but want to ensure
the flexibility of either temperature
scale for facilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment: One commenter pointed
out that Table 3 to the proposed rule
does not specify a required frequency
for the EPA Method 22 visible emissions
test. The commenter suggested EPA
Method 22 should be conducted daily
because it serves to ensure continued
satisfactory performance of the
emissions capture system. The
commenter said that defects in the
capture system and duct work leading to
a control device should not be allowed
to persist for 5 years before initiating
corrective action.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter that the frequency for EPA
Method 22 evaluations is not specified
in the rule. Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL, presents the
Requirements for Performance Tests; the
frequency of these tests, after the initial
Performance Test, is set in 40 CFR
63.8691(e). The EPA is clarifying that
the visible emissions and opacity tests
are included in the periodic
performance tests by removing the
phrase ‘‘during the initial compliance
period described in 63.8686’’ from the
appropriate rows in Table 4 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLLLL (Initial and
Continuous Compliance With Emissions
Limitations), dealing with opacity and
visible emissions measurements. The
inclusion of the EPA Method 22 visible
emissions measurement during the
performance test documents that, during
the performance test, the emissions
capture system was operating correctly
and that emissions directed to the
control device are maximized. The
addition of a daily EPA Method 22
evaluation is not necessary. The
requirement to limit visible emissions
from the capture system is applicable at
all times, and the continuing operation
of the emissions capture system outside
of the performance test is governed by
the general duty to operate and maintain
any affected source including the air
pollution control equipment in a
manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices.
Comment: One commenter supported
the EPA’s proposal to require
performance testing within 3 years of
publication and every 5 years thereafter,
to ensure compliance. Another
commenter said the requirement to
perform testing once every 5 years is
redundant with existing requirements.
The commenter contended that facilities
subject to the current NESHAP are
subject to title V permitting, and many
title V permits now require re-testing
once every 5 years consistent with the
title V renewal cycle.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the
requirement that the performance tests
must be conducted at least once every
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
5 years, as proposed; however, we are
adding language to the final rule text at
40 CFR 63.8691(e)(1) to clarify that
facilities are allowed to synchronize
their periodic performance testing
schedule with a previously conducted
emission test, such as a test associated
with title V permit renewal, provided
the facility can demonstrate to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that the
testing meets the requirements of 40
CFR 63.8686(b).
Comment: One commenter suggested
that if the EPA will not reconsider the
regulation requiring periodic testing
every 5 years, then the EPA should
propose an approach that allows testing
to be curtailed after a facility
demonstrates repeated compliance in
successive testing events.
Response: The EPA is not revising the
proposed rule to incorporate a reduction
in testing frequency greater than 5 years.
The EPA has, in some other rules,
included a provision that allows for a
reduction in the frequency of testing
from annual to a 3 or 5-year period after
multiple demonstrations of compliance.
The 5-year interval for testing in this
rule between performance tests would
require at least 15 years to demonstrate
a trend. Due to the timeframe of
recurrent testing (once every 5 years)
being promulgated in this rule, the EPA
concludes that allowance for a reduced
testing frequency is not warranted.
Comment: One commenter declared
that the requirement for periodic testing
is overly broad and fails to acknowledge
both the costs incurred (direct and
indirect) and whether additional testing
would result in any environmental
benefit. The commenter said the
proposed rule would require
performance testing of each control
device used to comply with NESHAP
standards for PM, THC, opacity, or
visible emissions but argued that
NESHAP regulations typically require
testing only for the control devices on
larger sources, not all control devices.
The commenter recommended that for
smaller control devices, opacity controls
(e.g., mist eliminators), and flares, it
should be adequate to operate and
maintain each control device as
recommended by the manufacturer. The
commenter pointed out that petroleum
refineries are not required to do any
periodic testing for flares subject to the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC). The commenter
said that by focusing on only the largest
emission sources, there is a clear
environmental benefit from the testing,
much less disruption to operations, and
much less cost incurred by the operator.
To the extent the EPA requires some
periodic testing, the commenter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
recommended that the testing
requirement exclude opacity and visible
emission control devices, the testing
requirement exclude flares, and the
periodic testing should focus only on
the largest emitting source, where risk is
determined to be higher or above some
specified threshold.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the
testing requirements as proposed. The
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
assertion that the NESHAP regulations
typically require testing only for larger
emissions sources. The periodic
performance test on all sources (small
and large) provides a demonstration that
the control devices associated with
these sources are continuing to operate
as designed. The operation of mist
eliminators is not merely to control
opacity, but also to control emissions of
the PM and organic compounds which
cause the opacity. The visible emissions
tests of the emissions capture system are
integral to determining if the overall
capture and control system are
operating as designed. The commenter
indicates that the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)
does not have periodic testing for flares;
however, the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP includes robust continuous
monitoring requirements associated
with flares that are not present in the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart LLLLL).
Comment: One commenter argued
that the net cost benefit that the EPA
presents in its justification for added
performance testing requirements is
significantly overstated and may
become a net burden. The commenter
suggested the EPA develop more
accurate estimates of testing costs to
provide a more realistic estimate of the
cost impact for the subject facilities. The
commenter stated the EPA’s cost
estimate for performance testing
assumes that each source to be tested
has an existing emissions point that can
actually be sampled, but this may not
always be the case, and the costs of
adding a stack, sampling ports, and/or
sample platforms and ladders should be
included. Additionally, the commenter
said the EPA’s performance test cost
estimates for thermal oxidizers treating
vent gas from blowing stills are too low.
The commenter argued that the EPA
underestimated the number of thermal
oxidizer/blowing still tests required,
and a test on a thermal oxidizer treating
vent gas from one or more blowing stills
typically requires testing over 3 separate
workdays because only one test run can
be completed in a typical workday. The
commenter stated that blowing stills
operate using a batch process that takes
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14545
up to 6 hours, and to assure the test
measurements are representative of the
batch cycle, testing is performed for the
duration of a batch. The commenter said
the cost for testing one thermal oxidizer
associated with one or more blowing
stills, with each test run covering an
entire batch cycle of up to 6 hours, is
$44,000. Using this value, the
commenter estimated total testing costs
to be $172,600 from an asphalt roofing
facility that has five reactors controlled
by two different thermal oxidizers
which discharge to separate stacks. The
commenter applied the increased
blowing still/thermal oxidizer costs to
the number of tests required for the four
facilities that do not already have 5-year
testing requirements under their
respective state title V programs, and
showed that the nationwide cost impact
is $309,100 rather than the EPA’s
estimate of $138,800. The commenter
said their cost estimate was more than
double the estimate the EPA provided in
Appendix A of the Cost Impacts
memorandum. The commenter said
their cost estimate is greater than the
EPA’s estimated cost savings of
$221,100 from proposed changes in
monitoring requirements, resulting in a
net cost burden rather than net cost
benefit.
Response: The EPA agrees that further
review of the costs is warranted and
based on this review, we have revised
our proposed cost impacts analysis. All
sources required to be tested have
existing initial performance testing
requirements and so have already been
tested at least once. Therefore, the
additional costs for adding a stack,
sampling ports, and/or sample platforms
and ladders have not been added to the
burden of this rule because we have
assumed these items already exist (due
to the existing initial performance
testing requirements). However, the EPA
agrees that, based on the longer run time
duration for the blowing stills, the
initial cost estimates for these tests was
low. Therefore, we revised our cost
impacts analysis to reflect the
commenter’s recommended higher
blowing still/thermal oxidizer testing
costs (i.e., $44,000). We also revised the
number of thermal oxidizer/blowing
still tests required for one facility. Our
revised analysis (even after considering
the information provided by this
commenter) still results in a net cost
savings rather than a net cost burden as
suggested by the commenter. We
estimate that the final amendments will
result in a nationwide net cost savings
of $132,000 (2017$) over the 5-year
period following promulgation of the
amendments. For further information on
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14546
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the costs and cost savings associated
with the final amendments, see the
memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Risk and Technology
Review Final and Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which are available
in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the
other amendments for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s proposed amendments for
this subpart including the proposed
technical and editorial corrections. For
the reasons explained in the proposed
rule (84 FR 18939), and in sections III.D
and IV.D.3 of this preamble, we are
finalizing these amendments.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are four asphalt processing
facilities, plus another four asphalt
processing facilities collocated with
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities,
currently operating as major sources of
HAP. As such, eight facilities are subject
to the final amendments. A complete
list of facilities that are currently subject
to the MACT standards is available in
Appendix A of the memorandum titled
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories Final, in Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2017–0662.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
B. What are the air quality impacts?
Because we are not establishing new
numerical emission limits and are not
requiring additional controls, no air
quality impacts are expected as a result
of the final amendments to the rule.
Requiring periodic performance testing
has the potential to reduce excess
emissions from sources using poorly
performing add-on controls, even
though facilities are required to be in
compliance at all times.
The final amendments will have no
effect on the energy needs of the
affected facilities in either source
category and would, therefore, have no
indirect or secondary air emissions
impacts.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We revised our proposed cost impacts
analysis based on a comment received
during the public comment period (see
section IV.D.3 of this preamble). We
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
estimate that the final amendments will
result in a nationwide net present value
of net cost savings of $132,000 (2017$)
over the 5-year period following
promulgation of amendments (2019–
2023). The equivalent annualized value
of these net cost savings is $32,000 per
year when costs are discounted at a 7percent discount rate. Because periodic
performance testing would be required
every 5 years, we estimated and
summarized the cost savings over a 5year period. The costs associated with
the final amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs
and periodic performance testing. The
requirement for periodic testing of once
every 5 years results in an estimated
increase in the present value of costs of
about $252,000 over the 5-year period in
addition to an estimated present value
of costs of about $4,000 for reviewing
the final amendments. However, the
changes to the monitoring requirements
for PM control devices result in an
estimated present value of cost savings
of about $388,000 over the 5-year
period. Therefore, overall, we estimate
the net present value of net cost savings
of about $132,000 for the 5-year period.
The final amendments to the monitoring
requirements are projected to alleviate
some need for asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities to have to retest
the PM control device for the sole
purpose of reestablishing new
temperature and pressure drop
operating limits and to allow facilities to
extend filter replacement by 3 months.
For further information on the costs and
cost savings associated with the final
amendments, see the memoranda, Cost
Impacts of Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk
and Technology Review Final and
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final,
which are available in the docket for
this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted earlier, we estimated a
nationwide cost savings associated with
the final requirements over the 5-year
period following promulgation of these
amendments. This cost savings is not
expected to have adverse economic
impacts. For further information on the
economic impacts associated with the
final requirements, see the
memorandum, Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which is available
in the docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA is not finalizing changes to
emissions limits, and we estimate the
final changes (i.e., changes to SSM,
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting)
are not economically significant.
Because these final amendments are not
considered economically significant, as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and
because no emissions reductions were
estimated, we did not estimate any
benefits from reducing emissions.
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
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 risks to
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 kilometers
(km) and within 50 km of the facilities.
In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories across
different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.
Results of the demographic analysis
indicate that, for six of the 11
demographic groups, African American,
Native American, other and multiracial,
ages 0–17, ages 18–64, and below the
poverty level, the percentage of the
population living within 5 km of
facilities in the source categories is
greater than the corresponding national
percentage for the same demographic
groups. When examining the risk levels
of those exposed to emissions from
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, we find that no
one is exposed to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
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 Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Categories Operations, available in the
docket for this action.
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
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 concludes, based on the results of
the risk assessment, that the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present
a disproportionate risk to children. This
action’s health and risk assessments are
summarized in section IV.A of this
preamble and are further documented in
the risk report, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Source Categories in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, available in the docket for this
action.
VI. 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 Orders 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 the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is considered an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost
savings of this final rule can be found
in the EPA’s analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action. See document titled Economic
Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which is available
in the docket for this action.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Information collection activities in
this rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA. The
ICR document that the EPA prepared
has been assigned EPA ICR number
2598.02. You can find a copy of the ICR
in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves
them.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
The EPA is not revising the numerical
emission limitation requirements for
this subpart. The EPA is finalizing a
requirement to conduct control device
performance testing no less frequently
than once every 5 years. The EPA has
also revised the SSM provisions of the
rule and is requiring the use of
electronic data reporting for future
performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports.
This information would be collected to
assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL.
Respondents/affected entities:
Owners or operators of asphalt
processing facilities and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL).
Estimated number of respondents:
Eight (total).
Frequency of response: Initial,
semiannual, and annual.
Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per
year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $95,900 (per
year), which includes $88,400
annualized capital and operation and
maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
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. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. There are no small entities
affected in this regulated industry. See
the document, Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, available in the
docket for this action.
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. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14547
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. None of the eight asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities that have been
identified as being affected by this final
action are owned or operated by tribal
governments or located within tribal
lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
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 concludes, based on the results of
the risk assessment, that the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present
a disproportionate risk to children. This
action’s health and risk assessments are
contained in section IV.A of this
preamble.
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 rulemaking involves technical
standards. As discussed in the preamble
of the proposal, the EPA conducted
searches for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP through the Enhanced
National Standards Systems Network
Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute. We also
contacted voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases.
We conducted searches for EPA
Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the
EPA’s VCS search, if the title or abstract
(if provided) of the VCS described
technical sampling and analytical
procedures that are similar to the EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14548
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reference method, the EPA reviewed it
as a potential equivalent method.
The EPA incorporates by reference
ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere,’’ with conditions as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9.
We note that this version of the method
(i.e., ASTM D7520–16) is a newer
version than what we proposed (i.e.,
ASTM D7520–2013). The same
proposed conditions apply to this newer
version; therefore, we are finalizing
these conditions, as proposed. The
method provides procedures for
determining the opacity of a plume,
using digital imagery and associated
hardware and software. During the
DCOT certification procedure outlined
in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520–16, the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor
must present the plumes in front of
various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue
sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds
(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). The
owner or operator must also have
standard operating procedures in place,
including daily or other frequency
quality checks, to ensure the equipment
is within manufacturing specifications
as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM
D7520–16. The owner or operator must
follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the
DCOT certification, compliance report,
data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEG
formatted images used for opacity and
certification determination. The owner
or operator or the DCOT vendor must
have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the
software to determine the visible
opacity of the 300 certification plumes.
For each set of 25 plumes, the user may
not exceed 15-percent opacity of any
one reading, and the average error must
not exceed 7.5-percent opacity. This
approval does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any
vendor’s hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the
certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in
accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and
this letter is on the facility, DCOT
operator, and DCOT vendor. This
method is available at ASTM
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite
1030, Washington, DC 20036. See
https://www.astm.org/.
The EPA decided not to include 11
other VCS; these methods are
impractical as alternatives because of
the lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation date, and other important
technical and policy considerations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
The search and review results have been
documented and are in the
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR
63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the
EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final
rule or any amendments.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA concludes, based on the
results of an analysis of demographic
factors, 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).
The documentation for this decision
is contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and in the technical report,
Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories Operations, available in the
docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 30, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Section 63.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(102) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(102) ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016,
IBR approved for § 63.1625(b) and table
3 to subpart LLLLL.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart LLLLL—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
3. Section 63.8681 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and removing and
reserving paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.8681
Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate an asphalt
processing facility or an asphalt roofing
manufacturing facility, as defined in
§ 63.8698, that is a major source as
defined in § 63.2, or is located at, or is
part of a major source as defined in
§ 63.2.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 63.8683 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text
and (d) to read as follows:
§ 63.8683
subpart?
When must I comply with this
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you have an area source that
increases its emissions or its potential to
emit such that it becomes a (or part of
a) major source as defined in § 63.2,
then the following requirements apply:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) You must meet the notification
requirements in § 63.8692 according to
the schedules in §§ 63.8692 and 63.9(a)
through (f) and (h). Some of the
notifications must be submitted before
you are required to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart.
■ 5. Section 63.8684 is amended by
revising the section heading to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.8684 What emission limitations and
operating limits must I meet?
6. Section 63.8685 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 63.8685 What are my general
requirements for complying with this
subpart?
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
(a) Before September 9, 2020, you
must be in compliance with the
emission limitations (including
operating limits) in this subpart at all
times, except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. On and
after September 9, 2020, you must be in
compliance with the emission
limitations (including operating limits)
in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of nonoperation of the
affected source (or specific portion
thereof) resulting in cessation of the
emissions to which this subpart applies.
(b) Before September 9, 2020, you
must always operate and maintain your
affected source, including air pollution
control and monitoring equipment,
according to the provisions in
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after September 9,
2020, at all times, you 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
you 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 that 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 affected source.
(c) Before September 9, 2020, you
must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan
(SSMP) according to the provisions in
§ 63.6(e)(3). On and after September 9,
2020, a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan is not required.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 63.8686 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
■ b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3);
and
■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
§ 63.8686 By what date must I conduct
initial performance tests or other initial
compliance demonstrations?
(a) For existing affected sources, you
must conduct initial performance tests
no later than 180 days after the
compliance date that is specified for
your source in § 63.8683 and according
to the provisions in § 63.7(a)(2).
(b) * * *
(3) The control device and process
parameter values established during the
previously-conducted emission test are
used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with this subpart; and
(4) The previously-conducted
emission test was completed within the
last 60 months.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 63.8687 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and removing and
reserving paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 63.8687 What performance tests, design
evaluations, and other procedures must I
use?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each performance test must be
conducted under normal operating
conditions and under the conditions
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, or nonoperation do not
constitute representative conditions for
purposes of conducting a performance
test. 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 explain
why the 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 63.8688 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to read as
follows:
§ 63.8688 What are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(f) As an option to installing the
CPMS specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, you may install a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or
a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) that meets the applicable
requirements in § 63.8 according to
Table 7 to this subpart and the
applicable performance specifications of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14549
(h) In your site-specific monitoring
plan, you must also address the
following:
(1) Ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7)
and (8);
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of § 63.8(d); and
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and
reporting procedures in accordance with
§§ 63.8693 and 63.8694 and the general
requirements of § 63.10(e)(1) and
(e)(2)(i).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 63.8689 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limitations?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Except as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, you must establish
each site-specific operating limit in
Table 2 to this subpart that applies to
you according to the requirements in
§ 63.8687 and Table 3 to this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For control devices used to
comply with the particulate matter
standards in Table 1 to this subpart, you
may establish any of the operating limits
for pressure drop range (i.e., a minimum
and a maximum pressure drop) across
the control device using manufacturers’
specifications in lieu of complying with
paragraph (b) of this section.
■ 11. Section 63.8690 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect
data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Before September 9, 2020, except
for monitor malfunctions, associated
repairs, and required quality assurance
or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and
required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or
collect data at all required intervals) at
all times that the affected source is
operating including periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction when the
affected source is operating. On and
after September 9, 2020, you must
monitor and collect data at all times in
accordance with § 63.8685(b), except
during periods of nonoperation of the
affected source (or specific portion
thereof) resulting in cessation of the
emissions to which this subpart applies.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Section 63.8691 is amended by:
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14550
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d);
and
■ c. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
§ 63.8691 How do I conduct periodic
performance tests and demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and operating limits?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each operating limit in
Table 2 to this subpart that applies to
you according to the procedures
specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and
you must conduct performance tests as
specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) Before September 9, 2020, you
must report each instance in which you
did not meet each operating limit in
Table 5 to this subpart that applies to
you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. These
instances are deviations from the
emission limitations in this subpart.
These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in
§ 63.8693. On and after September 9,
2020, you must report each instance in
which you did not meet each operating
limit in Table 5 to this subpart that
applies to you, except during periods of
nonoperation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this
subpart applies.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Before September 9, 2020,
consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1),
deviations that occur during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that you
were operating in accordance with
§ 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will
determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to
the provisions in § 63.6(e). On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (d) no
longer applies.
(e) For each control device used to
comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or
visible emission standards of this
subpart, you must conduct periodic
performance tests using the applicable
procedures specified in § 63.8687 and
Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate
compliance with § 63.8684(a), and to
confirm or reestablish the operating
limits required by § 63.8684(b). You
must conduct periodic performance
tests according to the schedule specified
in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, for each existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
affected source, and for each new and
reconstructed affected source that
commences construction or
reconstruction after November 21, 2001
and on or before March 12, 2020, you
must conduct the first periodic
performance test on or before March 13,
2023. As an alternative to the first
periodic performance test, you may use
the results of a previously-conducted
emission test to demonstrate
compliance with the emission
limitations in this subpart, such as tests
for renewing your facility’s operating
permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR
part 71, if you demonstrate to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that it meets
the requirements of § 63.8686(b)(1)
through (4). The subsequent periodic
performance tests must be conducted no
later than 60 months thereafter
following the previous performance test.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, for each new and
reconstructed affected source that
commences construction or
reconstruction after March 12, 2020, you
must conduct the first periodic
performance test no later than 60
months following the initial
performance test required by § 63.8689.
If you used the alternative compliance
option specified in § 63.8686(b) to
comply with the initial performance
test, then you must conduct the first
periodic performance test no later than
60 months following the date you
demonstrated to the Administrator that
the requirements of § 63.8686(b) had
been met.
(3) If an affected source is not
operating on the dates the periodic
performance test is required to be
conducted as specified in paragraph
(e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are
not required to restart the affected
source for the sole purpose of
complying with paragraph (e)(1) or (2)
of this section. Instead, upon restart of
the affected source, you must conduct
the first periodic performance test
within 60 days of achieving normal
operating conditions but no later than
180 days from startup. You must
conduct subsequent periodic
performance tests no later than 60
months thereafter following the
previous performance test.
■ 13. Section 63.8692 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) to
read as follows:
§ 63.8692 What notifications must I submit
and when?
(a) You must submit all the
notifications in §§ 63.6(h)(4) and (5),
63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b)
through (f) and (h) that apply to you by
the dates specified in these sections,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
except as provided in paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If you are required to conduct a
performance test, design evaluation,
opacity observation, visible emission
observation, or other compliance
demonstration as specified in Table 3 or
4 to this subpart, you must submit a
Notification of Compliance Status
according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must
submit the Notification of Compliance
Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the
completion of the performance test
according to § 63.10(d)(2). On and after
September 9, 2020, you must submit all
subsequent Notification of Compliance
Status reports to EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
be accessed through EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
If you claim some of the information
required to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI),
then submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be
CBI, to EPA. 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 EPA via EPA’s CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph (e).
You may assert a claim of EPA system
outage or force majeure for failure to
timely comply with the reporting
requirement in this paragraph (e)
provided you meet the requirements
outlined in § 63.8693(h) or (i), as
applicable.
(f) If you are using data from a
previously-conducted emission test to
serve as documentation of conformance
with the emission standards and
operating limits of this subpart as
specified in § 63.8686(b), you must
submit the test data in lieu of the initial
performance test results with the
Notification of Compliance Status
required under paragraph (e) of this
section.
■ 14. Section 63.8693 is amended by:
■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (5),
(d) introductory text, (d)(1) through (4),
and (d)(6);
■ c. Adding paragraph (d)(13);
■ d. Revising paragraph (f); and
■ e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.8693
when?
What reports must I submit and
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) On and after September 9, 2020,
you must submit all compliance reports
to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be
accessed through EPA’s CDX (https://
cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the
appropriate electronic report template
on the CEDRI website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this
subpart. The date report templates
become available will be listed on the
CEDRI website. 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 CBI,
submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to EPA.
The report must be generated using the
appropriate form on the CEDRI website
or an alternate electronic file consistent
with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed 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
EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier
in this paragraph (b)(6). You may assert
a claim of EPA system outage or force
majeure for failure to timely comply
with the reporting requirement in this
paragraph (b)(6) provided you meet the
requirements outlined in § 63.8693(h) or
(i), as applicable.
(c) * * *
(4) Before September 9, 2020, if you
had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the reporting period and you
took actions consistent with your SSMP,
the compliance report must include the
information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). On and
after September 9, 2020, this paragraph
(c)(4) no longer applies.
(5) For each reporting period, you
must include in the compliance report
the total number of deviations that
occurred during the reporting period. If
there are no deviations from any
emission limitations (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and
visible emission limit) in § 63.8684 that
apply to you, then you must include a
statement that there were no deviations
from the emission limitations during the
reporting period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
(d) For each deviation from an
emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and
visible emission limit) in § 63.8684, you
must include in the compliance report
the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) of this section, and the
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(13) of this section.
(1) The start date, start time, and
duration of each malfunction.
(2) For each instance that the CPMS,
CEMS, or COMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and highlevel checks, the start date, start time,
and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or
COMS was inoperative; the cause
(including unknown cause) for the
CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being
inoperative; and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(3) For each instance that the CPMS,
CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control as
specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the start date,
start time, and duration that the CPMS,
CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control,
including the information in
§ 63.8(c)(8).
(4) Before September 9, 2020, the start
date, start time, and duration of the
deviation, and whether each deviation
occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during
another period. On and after September
9, 2020, the start date, start time, and
duration of the deviation including a
description of the deviation and the
actions you took to minimize emissions
in accordance with § 63.8685(b). You
must also include:
(i) A list of the affected sources or
equipment for which the deviation
occurred;
(ii) The cause of the deviation
(including unknown cause, if
applicable); and
(iii) Any corrective actions taken to
return the affected unit to its normal or
usual manner of operation.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Before September 9, 2020, a
breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations during the reporting period
into those that are due to startup,
shutdown, control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes,
and other unknown causes. On and after
September 9, 2020, 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 other unknown causes.
*
*
*
*
*
(13) On and after September 9, 2020,
for each deviation from an emission
limitation in § 63.8684, you must
include an estimate of the quantity of
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
14551
each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limitation in § 63.8684,
and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) On and after September 9, 2020,
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance
test following the procedures specified
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Data collected using test methods
supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) as listed on 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 to EPA via the CEDRI,
which can be accessed through EPA’s
CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data
must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA’s ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on EPA’s ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as
listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time
of the test. The results of the
performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on EPA’s ERT website.
Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) CBI. If you claim some of the
information submitted under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to EPA.
The file must be generated through the
use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on EPA’s ERT 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 EPA via
EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.
(g) On and after September 9, 2020,
within 60 days after the date of
completing each continuous monitoring
system (CMS) performance evaluation
(as defined in § 63.2) as specified in
your site-specific monitoring plan, you
must submit the results of the
performance evaluation following the
procedures specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14552
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS
measuring relative accuracy test audit
(RATA) pollutants that are supported by
EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT
website at the time of the evaluation.
Submit the results of the performance
evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through EPA’s CDX. The
data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA’s ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on EPA’s ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS
measuring RATA pollutants that are not
supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on
EPA’s ERT website at the time of the
evaluation. The results of the
performance evaluation must be
included as an attachment in the ERT or
an alternate electronic file consistent
with the XML schema listed on EPA’s
ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to EPA via
CEDRI.
(3) CBI. If you claim some of the
information submitted under paragraph
(g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to EPA.
The file must be generated through the
use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on EPA’s ERT 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 EPA via
EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph
(g)(1) of this section.
(h) If you are required to
electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure
to timely comply with the reporting
requirement in this section. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must
meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (h)(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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
(i) If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s
CDX, you may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply
with the reporting requirement in this
section. To assert a claim of force
majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs
(i)(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;
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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.
■ 15. Section 63.8694 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 63.8694
What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Before September 9, 2020, the
records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. On and after September 9,
2020, this paragraph (a)(2) no longer
applies.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Any records required to be
maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via 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 EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation.
■ 16. Section 63.8697 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 63.8697 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Approval of alternatives to the
requirements in §§ 63.8681, 63.8682,
63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686,
63.8687, 63.8688, 63.8689, 63.8690, and
63.8691.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Section 63.8698 is amended by
revising definitions of ‘‘Adhesive
applicator,’’ ‘‘Deviation,’’ and ‘‘Sealant
applicator’’ to read as follows:
§ 63.8698
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Adhesive applicator means the
equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially
submerged in an open pan of adhesive)
to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14553
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
producing laminated or dimensional
roofing shingles.
*
*
*
*
*
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
emission 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) Before September 9, 2020, fails to
meet any emission limitation (including
any operating limit) or work practice
standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted
by this subpart. On and after September
9, 2020, this paragraph (3) no longer
applies.
*
*
*
*
*
Sealant applicator means the
equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially
submerged in an open pan of sealant) to
apply a sealant strip to a roofing
product. The sealant strip is used to seal
overlapping pieces of roofing product
after they have been applied.
*
*
*
*
*
18. Table 1 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by revising row 1 and
footnote b to read as follows:
■
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITATIONS
For—
You must meet the following emission limitation—
1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt loading rack, and Group 1 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities; and each Group 1 asphalt storage tank at existing,
new, and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines; and
each coating mixer, saturator (including wet looper), coater, sealant
applicator, and adhesive applicator at new and reconstructed asphalt
roofing manufacturing lines.
a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions by 95 percent, or to a
concentration of 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen;
b. Route the emissions to a combustion device achieving a combustion
efficiency of 99.5 percent;
c. Route the emissions to a combustion device that does not use auxiliary fuel achieving a total hydrocarbon (THC) destruction efficiency
of 95.8 percent;
d. Route the emissions to a boiler or process heater with a design heat
input capacity of 44 megawatts (MW) or greater;
e. Introduce the emissions into the flame zone of a boiler or process
heater; or
f. Route emissions to a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.11(b).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
opacity limit can be exceeded for one consecutive 15-minute period in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being
cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to the
saturator control device, the combined emissions from the saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit (specified in 3.a of
Table 1 to this subpart) during this 15-minute period. At any other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2 asphalt storage tanks.
b The
19. Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by revising rows 3 and
■
4 and footnotes a and c to read as
follows:
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS
You must a
For—
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Control devices used to comply with the particulate matter stand- a. Maintain the 3-hour average b inlet gas temperature at or below the
operating limit established during the performance test; and
ards..
b. Maintain the 3-hour average b pressure drop across the device c
within the operating range limits (i.e., at or above a minimum pressure drop and at or below a maximum pressure drop) established
during the performance test, or as an alternative, established according to the manufacturer’s specifications as specified in § 63.8689(d).
4. Other control devices that are neither a combustion device nor a Maintain the approved monitoring parameters within the operating limcontrol device used to comply with the particulate matter emission
its established during the performance test.
standards.
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart are applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS, you must maintain emissions below the value established during the initial
performance test.
b A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-hour averaging period for this parameter.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage must be
maintained at or above the operating limit established during the performance test.
20. Table 3 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by revising rows 1, 7,
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
and 11 through 13 and footnotes a and
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
c and adding footnotes d through f to
read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14554
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS a b
For—
You must—
Using—
According to the following requirements—
1. All particulate matter, total hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide,
and carbon dioxide emission
tests.
a. Select sampling port’s location and the number of traverse points.
i. EPA test method 1 or 1A in
appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter.
A. For demonstrating compliance with the total hydrocarbon
percent reduction standard, the sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of the control device prior to any
releases to the atmosphere.
B. For demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
mass emission rate, THC destruction efficiency, THC outlet
concentration, or combustion efficiency standards, the sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
*
7. All opacity tests ......................
*
*
Conduct opacity observations ..
*
EPA test method 9 in appendix
A to part 60 of this chapter,
or ASTM D7520–16 d f.
*
*
*
Conduct opacity observations for at least 3 hours and obtain
30, 6-minute averages.
*
11. Each combustion device ......
*
*
Establish a site-specific combustion zone temperature
operating limit.
*
Data from the CPMS and the
applicable performance test
method(s).
12. Each control device used to
comply with the particulate
matter emission standards.
Establish a site-specific inlet
gas temperature operating
limit; and if not complying
with § 63.8689(d), also establish site-specific limits for
the pressure drop range (i.e.,
a minimum and a maximum
pressure drop) across the
device e.
Data from the CPMS and the
applicable performance test
method(s).
13. Each control device that is
neither a combustion device
nor a control device used to
comply with the particulate
matter emission standards.
Establish site-specific
toring parameters.
Process data and data from
the CPMS and the applicable
performance test method(s).
*
*
*
You must collect combustion zone temperature data every 15
minutes during the entire period of the 3-hour performance
test, and determine the average combustion zone temperature over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings.
You must collect the inlet gas temperature and pressure drop b
data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the 3-hour
performance test, and determine the average inlet gas temperature and pressure drop c over the 3-hour performance
test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings. The inlet gas temperature operating limit is set at +20
percent of the test run average inlet gas temperature measured in units of degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. The
maximum (or minimum) pressure drop is set as the maximum (or minimum) average pressure drop of the performance test runs which demonstrated compliance with the applicable emission limit.
You must collect monitoring parameter data every 15 minutes
during the entire period of the 3-hour performance test, and
determine the average monitoring parameter values over the
3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of
the 15-minute readings.
*
*
moni-
*
*
*
*
*
a For
initial performance tests, as specified in § 63.8686(b), you may request that data from a previously-conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart.
b Performance tests are not required if: (1) The emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the
emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a boiler or process heater.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP.
d If you use ASTM D7520–16 in lieu of EPA test method 9, then you must comply with the conditions specified in this footnote. During the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree
stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing
specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520–16. You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in § 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed
15 percent opacity of any one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation
of any vendor’s hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with
ASTM D7520–16 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
e You may conduct two separate performance tests to establish the operating limits for pressure drop range (i.e., one performance test to establish a minimum
pressure drop operating limit and one performance test to establish a maximum pressure drop operating limit); however, you may choose to establish either, or both,
the minimum and maximum pressure drop operating limits using the requirements of § 63.8689(d) in lieu of the requirements specified in this Table.
f Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14.
21. Table 4 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by revising the table
heading, the fourth column heading,
and rows 4 and 5 to read as follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—INITIAL AND CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS
For—
For the following emission limitation—
You have demonstrated compliance if—
*
*
4. Each saturator (including wet looper) and
coater at an existing, new, or reconstructed
asphalt roofing manufacturing line.
*
*
*
a. Limit visible emissions from the emissions
capture system to 20 percent of any period
of consecutive valid observations totaling 60
minutes.
*
*
The visible emissions, measured using EPA
test method 22 in appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter, for any period of consecutive
valid observations totaling 60 minutes do
not exceed 20 percent.
The opacity, measured using EPA test method
9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter,
for each of the first 30 6-minute averages
does not exceed 20 percent.
b. Limit opacity emissions to 20 percent ..........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
14555
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—INITIAL AND CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS—
Continued
For—
For the following emission limitation—
You have demonstrated compliance if—
5. Each Group 2 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.
Limit exhaust gases to 0 percent opacity .........
The opacity, measured using EPA test method
9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter,
for each of the first 30 6-minute averages
does not exceed 0 percent.
*
■
22. Table 5 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by revising rows 3 and
4 and footnotes a and d to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS a
For—
For the following operating limit—
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by—
*
*
3. Control devices used to comply with the
particulate matter emission standards.
*
*
*
a. Maintain the 3-hour c average inlet gas temperature at or below the operating limit established during the performance test; and.
*
*
i. Passing the emissions through the control
device; and
ii. Collecting the inlet gas temperature and
pressure
drop d
data
according
to
§ 63.8688(b) and (c); and
iii. Reducing inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d data to 3-hour c averages according to calculations in Table 3 to this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the 3-hour c average inlet gas
temperature within the level established during the performance test; and
v. Maintaining the 3-hour c average pressure
drop across device d within the level established pursuant to § 63.8689(b) and/or (d).
i. Passing the emissions through the devices;
ii. Collecting the monitoring parameter data
according to § 63.8688(d); and
iii. Reducing the monitoring parameter data to
3-hour c averages according to calculations
in Table 3 to this subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the monitoring parameters within the level established during the performance test.
b. Maintain the 3-hour c average pressure drop
across device d within the operating range
limits that were established pursuant to
§ 63.8689(b) and/or (d).
4. Other control devices that are neither a
combustion device nor a control device used
to comply with the particulate matter emission standards.
a. Maintain the monitoring parameters within
the operating limits established during the
performance test.
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and the requirements specified in Table 5 to this subpart are applicable if you are
monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits, you are not required to record control device operating parameters. However, you must maintain emissions below the
value established during the initial performance test. Data from the CEMS and COMS must be reduced as specified in §§ 63.8690 and 63.8(g)(1)
through (4).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
c A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-hour averaging period for this parameter.
d As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage must be
maintained at or above the operating limit established during the performance test.
23. Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by revising rows 4, 5,
and 6 and adding row 7 to read as
follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS
You must submit—
The report must contain—
You must submit the report—
*
*
4. Notification of compliance status ..................
*
*
*
The information in § 63.9(h)(2) through (5), as
applicable.
*
*
According
to
the
requirements
in
§§ 63.8692(e) and 63.9(h)(2) through (5), as
applicable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
14556
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS—Continued
You must submit—
The report must contain—
You must submit the report—
5. A compliance report ......................................
a. A statement that there were no deviations
from the emission limitations during the reporting period, if there are no deviations
from any emission limitations (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible
emission limit) that apply to you.
b. If there were no periods during which the
CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control
as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that
there were no periods during which the
CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control
during the reporting period.
c. If you have a deviation from any emission
limitation (emission limit, operating limit,
opacity limit, and visible emission limit), the
report must contain the information in
§ 63.8693(c) and (d).
d. Before September 9, 2020, if you had a
startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, the compliance report
must
include
the
information
in
§ 63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after September 9,
2020, this paragraph no longer applies.
The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ...................
Semiannually according to the requirements in
§ 63.8693(b).
6. An immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting
period before September 9, 2020, and actions taken were not consistent with your
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. On
and after September 9, 2020, this paragraph
no longer applies.
7. Performance test report ................................
24. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part
63 is amended by:
■ a. Removing the entry for § 63.6(e)(1)
and adding entries in numerical order
for §§ 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), and
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
■ b. Revising the entries for
§§ 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(h)(1), and
63.7(e)(1);
■
Semiannually according to the requirements in
§ 63.8693(b).
Semiannually according to the requirements in
§ 63.8693(b).
Semiannually according to the requirements in
§ 63.8693(b).
By fax or telephone within 2 working days
after starting actions inconsistent with the
plan followed by a letter within 7 working
days after the end of the event unless you
have made alternative arrangements with
the permitting authority.
The information in § 63.7 ..................................
Within 60 days after completion of the performance test according to the requirements
in § 63.8693(f).
c. Adding an entry in numerical order
for § 63.7(e)(4);
■ d. Removing the entry for § 63.8(c)(1);
■ e. Revising the entries for
§§ 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii),
63.8(c)(1)(iii), and 63.8(d);
■ f. Removing the entry for
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v);
■
■
g. Adding entries in numerical order
for §§ 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii),
63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and
63.10(b)(2)(v); and
■ h. Revising the entry for § 63.10(d)(5).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Citation
Subject
Brief description
Applies to subpart LLLLL
*
*
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................
*
*
*
Operation & Maintenance ............. Operate to minimize emissions at
all times.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................
Operation & Maintenance .............
Correct malfunctions as soon as
practicable.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ...............................
Operation & Maintenance .............
Operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if
operation and maintenance requirements were met.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020. See § 63.8685(b) for general duty requirement.
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
Yes.
12MRR2
14557
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued
Citation
Subject
*
*
§ 63.6(e)(3) ....................................
§ 63.6(f)(1) .....................................
*
*
§ 63.6(h)(1) ....................................
Applies to subpart LLLLL
*
*
*
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunc- 1. Requirement for SSM and starttion (SSM) Plan (SSMP).
up, shutdown, malfunction plan.
2. Content of SSMP.
Compliance Except During SSM .. You must comply with emission
standards at all times except
during SSM.
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
*
*
§ 63.7(e)(1) ....................................
*
*
*
Conditions for Conducting Per- 1. Performance tests must be
formance Tests.
conducted under representative
conditions. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM.
2. Not a violation to exceed standard during SSM.
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020. See § 63.8687.
*
*
§ 63.7(e)(4) ....................................
*
*
*
Conduct of performance tests ...... Administrator’s authority to require
testing under section 114 of the
Act.
*
Yes.
*
*
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................
*
*
*
Routine and predictable CMS mal- 1. Keep parts for routine repairs
function.
readily available.
2. Reporting requirements for
CMS malfunction when action is
described in SSM plan.
CMS malfunction not in SSP plan
Keep the necessary parts for routine repairs if CMS.
Compliance with Operation and Develop a written startup, shutMaintenance Requirements.
down, and malfunction plan for
CMS.
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...............................
*
Compliance
Standards.
*
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
*
You must comply with opacity/VE
emission limitations at all times
except during SSM.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................
with
Opacity/VE
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
*
*
*
*
CMS Quality Control ..................... 1. Requirements for CMS quality Yes.
control, including calibration, etc.
2. Must keep quality control plan
on record for the life of the affected source.
3. Keep old versions for 5 years
after revisions.
*
*
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...............................
*
*
*
Records related to Startup and Occurrence of each of operation
Shutdown.
(process equipment).
§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ..............................
Recordkeeping Relevant to Malfunction Periods and CMS.
Occurrence of each malfunction of
air pollution equipment.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................
Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control
and Monitoring Equipment.
Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Periods and CMS.
Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Periods and CMS.
Maintenance on air pollution control equipment.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) ..............................
*
*
§ 63.10(d)(5) ..................................
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Actions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction.
*
*
*
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunc- Contents and submission .............
tion Reports.
*
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Actions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction.
*
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
*
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
Yes.
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
*
*
Yes before September 9, 2020.
No on and after September 9,
2020.
*
Sfmt 4700
*
Yes.
*
*
§ 63.8(d) ........................................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) .............................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Brief description
*
12MRR2
*
14558
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2020–02369 Filed 3–11–20; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Mar 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM
12MRR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14526-14558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02369]
[[Page 14525]]
Vol. 85
Thursday,
No. 49
March 12, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and
Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 14526]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662; FRL-10005-06-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT34
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and
Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories regulated under national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are
taking final action to: Correct and clarify regulatory provisions
related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM); revise monitoring requirements for a control device
used to comply with the particulate matter (PM) standards; add
requirements for periodic performance testing; add electronic reporting
of performance test results and reports, performance evaluation
reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status
(NOCS) reports; and include other technical corrections to improve
consistency and clarity. We are making no revisions to the numerical
emission limits based on the residual risk analysis or technology
review. Although these amendments are not anticipated to result in
reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they will
improve compliance and implementation of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 12, 2020. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March
12, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0662. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., 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 form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Tonisha Dawson, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-1454; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the
risk assessment, 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
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South
Building (2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 levels
APCD air pollution control device
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On May 2, 2019, the EPA proposed results of
the RTR and amendments to the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action, we are finalizing decisions
regarding the RTR and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the
more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments are available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for Risk and Technology Review for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing document, which is available in the docket,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that
[[Page 14527]]
incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the
docket.
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?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source categories?
C. What changes did we propose for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories in our May 2, 2019,
RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the residual risk
review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source categories?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source categories?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
B. Technology Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
D. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations 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
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 1 Code
Source category NESHAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asphalt Processing................ Asphalt Processing 324110
and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing.
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing..... Asphalt Processing 324122
and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/asphalt-processing-and-asphalt-roofing-manufacturing-national.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by May 11, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
[[Page 14528]]
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 18926, May 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from
the source categories?
The EPA promulgated the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP on April 29, 2003 (68 FR 22975). The standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL. The asphalt processing
industry consists of facilities that are engaged in the preparation and
oxidation of asphalt flux. The asphalt roofing manufacturing industry
consists of facilities that are engaged in the production of asphalt
roofing products. As of December 15, 2019, there were eight facilities
in operation and subject to the MACT standards. Four of the eight
facilities are strictly asphalt processing facilities and the other
four operate an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility collocated with
an asphalt processing facility.
As promulgated in 2003 and amended on May 17, 2005 (70 FR 28360),
the NESHAP prescribes MACT standards for asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP. The
MACT standards establish emission limits for PM and total hydrocarbons
(THC) as surrogates for total organic HAP. The MACT standards also
limit the opacity and visible emissions from certain emission sources.
The source categories and the MACT standards are further described in
the proposed rule. See 84 FR 18926, 18929 (May 2, 2019).
C. What changes did we propose for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source categories in our May 2, 2019, RTR
proposal?
On May 2, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, that took into consideration the
RTR analyses. We proposed to find that the risks from each of the
source categories are acceptable and that additional or revised
standards are not required in order to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. See 84 FR 18926, 18929 (May 2, 2019). In addition, pursuant to
the technology review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories, we proposed to conclude that no
revisions to the current standards are necessary for asphalt loading
racks, asphalt storage tanks, blowing stills, coating mixers,
saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, and
adhesive applicators. The EPA also proposed to conclude that it is not
necessary to promulgate a hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions standard
for blowing stills pursuant to the technology review.
We also proposed the following amendments:
Revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP in order to
ensure consistency with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted
source owners and operators from the requirement to comply with
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM;
[[Page 14529]]
a provision allowing owners and operators to use
manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop
across the control device used to comply with the PM standards;
a provision allowing owners and operators to use the
performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating
margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a
control device used to comply with the PM standards;
periodic performance testing (i.e., at least once every 5
years), using the same methods currently required for the initial
compliance demonstration, of each air pollution control device (APCD)
used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible emission
standards, in addition to the current one-time initial performance
testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring;
a requirement for electronic submittal of performance test
results and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance
reports, and NOCS reports;
IBR of an alternative test method for EPA Test Method 9;
and
several minor editorial and technical changes in the
subpart.
In the same document, although we did not propose any rule
amendments based on the residual risk or technology reviews, we
requested comment on the relationship between the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review and the CAA section 112(f) residual risk review;
specifically, the extent to which findings that underlie a CAA section
112(f) determination should be considered in making any determinations
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112(f)(2) and CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories.
This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including
corrections and clarifications to regulatory provisions related to
emissions during periods of SSM; adding electronic reporting of
performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports; and other technical corrections
to improve consistency and clarity. This action also includes a number
of other amendments to the NESHAP generally similar to those proposed
in the May 2, 2019, RTR proposal, such as amendments related to
monitoring procedures and periodic performance testing, but with some
modifications based on consideration of comments received during the
public comment period as described in sections III.D and IV.D of this
preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the residual risk review
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
This section describes the final actions regarding the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP that the EPA is
taking pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to
these NESHAP based on the residual risk reviews conducted pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed
determination that risks due to emissions from the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories are acceptable, and
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
The EPA received two emissions inventory updates for two specific
facilities during the public comment period. After considering the
updated information, the Agency decided to update certain modeling file
records for those two facilities and to reanalyze risk for both source
categories, in part because some of the emissions estimates were
notably higher than the estimates we used for risk modeling for the
proposal and we wanted to confirm that risks were still acceptable. The
EPA reanalyzed risk using the same risk assessment methodology used for
the proposed rule; however, this did not result in any change to our
proposed determination. Based on our analyses (which include the
emissions inventory updates received during the public comment period),
we find that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. The
EPA is, therefore, not revising the standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) (for NESHAP 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL) based on the
residual risk review. See sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.3 of this preamble
for discussion of key comments and responses regarding the residual
risk review, including details about the emissions inventory updates we
received during the public comment period.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
The EPA is not finalizing the technology review as proposed
regarding HCl emissions standards for blowing stills. As discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA determined that it is not
appropriate to establish new standards for previously unregulated
sources or pollutants as part of the technology review. The Agency is
finalizing all required aspects of the technology review as proposed.
The EPA has determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for these source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Section
IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments we received
on the technology review and our responses.
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
The Agency is finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate the
SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the EPA is establishing standards in this rule that apply
at all times. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 (General Provisions
applicability table) is being revised to change several references
related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. The EPA
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to
the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant
language in the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA determined that
facilities in these source categories can meet the applicable emission
standards in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown.
Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed
to address emissions during these periods. Also, as stated in our
proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d
579, 606-10 (2016). The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM
periods that are being finalized in this rule are set forth in the
proposed rule. See 84 FR 18945 through 18949.
[[Page 14530]]
The EPA is also finalizing a revision to the performance testing
requirements at 40 CFR 63.8687(b). This final rule text states that
each performance test must be conducted under normal operating
conditions; and operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes
of conducting a performance test. The final rules also require that
operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during
the test represent normal operations. Section IV.C.3 of this preamble
provides a summary of key comments we received on the SSM provisions
and our responses.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP requirements. The revisions are briefly described in this
section (refer to section IV.D of this preamble for further details).
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners and
operators of facilities in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test results and reports, performance evaluation
reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) website. Performance test and performance
evaluation test reports are prepared using the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool. We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility
(i.e., a possible outage in the CDX or Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or a force majeure event in the time just
prior to a report's due date), as well as the process to assert such a
claim. In addition, we are finalizing all revisions that we proposed
for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical
errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial corrections and
clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of the proposal. See 54 FR
18951 and 18952. We received no public comment on the editorial
corrections and clarifications and these changes are being finalized as
proposed.
We are also finalizing amendments in the NESHAP for monitoring
pressure drop and temperature of APCDs, and for periodic compliance
testing, similar to the proposed amendments, but with some
modifications in response to issues raised in comments on the proposed
rulemaking. Regarding pressure drop, instead of using manufacturers'
specifications or a performance test to establish only a maximum
pressure drop across the control device used to comply with the PM
standards as proposed, we are finalizing a requirement that requires
owners and operators to establish a pressure drop range (i.e., a
minimum and a maximum pressure drop) across the PM control device with
the option to either use manufacturers' specifications or a performance
test to establish the range. The addition of a minimum limitation to
the operating range of the PM control device mirrors the approach in
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an indication of
breakthrough or bypass of the control device, as a drop in the
differential pressure below that established by the manufacturer's
specification would indicate that potentially either the control device
has been inadvertently bypassed (leaking around the filter) or tearing
or distortion of the filter has occurred. As stated in the proposal,
allowing the use of manufacturers' specifications provides flexibility
and alleviates the need for a facility to have to retest the PM control
device to reestablish new operating limits due to the inability of a
source to ``dial in'' the differential pressure of their control device
for a particular performance test as the differential pressure
increases over time as a result of particulate deposition. With regard
to monitoring temperature, similar to proposal, the Agency is
finalizing a requirement that allows owners and operators to use the
performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating
margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a
control device used to comply with the PM standards; however, in the
final rule, the Agency is clarifying the operating margin applies to
temperatures expressed in units of degrees Celsius or degrees
Fahrenheit. The EPA acknowledges that the use of Celsius will result in
a slightly more conservative temperature range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit
less when compared to the corresponding Fahrenheit range), but it is
appropriate to provide the flexibility for facilities to use either
temperature scale as either scale will ensure the control devices are
operating properly. On the other hand, the application of a 20-percent
margin to temperature expressed in absolute temperature (Rankin or
Kelvin scales) would result in too large of an operating limit window.
Therefore, we are not allowing the use of an absolute temperature
scale. Finally, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards, the
EPA is finalizing requirements for periodic performance testing for
each APCD used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, and visible
emission standards, in addition to the current one-time initial
performance testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring. The EPA is
requiring that the performance tests must be conducted at least once
every 5 years, as proposed; however, the Agency is adding language to
the final rule text to allow facilities to synchronize their periodic
performance testing schedule with a previously conducted emission test
provided they can demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the previously-conducted testing meets the requirements of this rule.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on March 12, 2020. The EPA is finalizing three
changes that would affect ongoing compliance requirements for this
subpart. First, we are changing the requirements for SSM by removing
the provisions that provide an exemption from the requirements to meet
the standard during SSM periods. Second, we are removing the
requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Finally, we are
adding a requirement that performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports be
submitted electronically. From the assessment of the timeframe needed
for implementing the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA
proposed a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable. No opposing comments were received during the
public comment period, and the 180-day period is being finalized as
proposed. Thus, the compliance date of the final amendments for all
affected sources is September 8, 2020.
Also, we are adding requirements to conduct ongoing periodic
performance testing every 5 years. The EPA proposed that each existing
affected source, and each new and reconstructed affected source that
commences construction or reconstruction after November 21, 2001, and
on or before March 12, 2020 that uses an APCD to comply with the
standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or
before March 13, 2023 and conduct subsequent
[[Page 14531]]
periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following
the previous performance test. The EPA also proposed that owners or
operators of each new and reconstructed affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after March 12, 2020 that uses an APCD
to comply with the standards, conduct the first periodic performance
test no later than 60 months following the initial performance test and
conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months
thereafter following the previous performance test. If owners or
operators used the alternative compliance option specified in 40 CFR
63.8686(b) to comply with the initial performance test, then the EPA
proposed that they must conduct the first periodic performance test no
later than 60 months following the date they demonstrated to the
Administrator that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8686(b) had been met.
These compliance dates are being finalized as proposed; however, based
on a comment received during the public comment period, the EPA is
including additional language that allows facilities to synchronize
their periodic performance testing schedule with a previously conducted
emission test provided they can demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the previously conducted testing meets the
requirements of this rule (refer to section IV.D of this preamble for
further details).
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
Risk and Technology Review for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the May 2, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL (84 FR 18926). The key results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail may be
found in the residual risk technical support document, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 2--Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Proposed Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population at Estimated annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum
cancer risk (in 1 increased risk of cancer incidence (cases per noncancer TOSHI screening acute
million) 2 >=1-in-1 million year) -------------------------- noncancer HQ
Number of facilities 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Based on actual Based on actual Based on actual Based on actual Based on actual
emissions level 2 3 emissions level 3 emissions level 3 emissions level 3 emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................. <1 0 0.0007 0.1 HQREL = 4
(formaldehyde).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories.
3 Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
The results of the proposed inhalation risk assessment, as shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, indicated that the cancer risk to the
individual most exposed is below 1-in-1 million from both actual and
allowable emissions, the estimated maximum chronic noncancer target
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) based on both actual and allowable
emissions is 0.1, and the maximum acute noncancer hazard quotient (HQ)
is 4 driven by formaldehyde based on the acute reference exposure level
(REL). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from
these facilities based on actual emission levels was estimated to be
0.0007 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,430 years.
The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the eight
facilities, based on whole facility emissions, was estimated to be 9-
in-1 million at proposal, with naphthalene and benzene emissions from
facility-wide fugitive emissions and nickel compound emissions from
flares from the Petroleum Refinery source category driving the risk. At
proposal, the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) posed by
whole facility emissions was estimated to be 0.1 (for the respiratory
system) and occurred at two facilities.
At proposal, the Agency identified emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP): Cadmium
compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic
matter (POM) (of which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset).
The multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum Tier 2
cancer screening value of 2 for POM. The Tier 2 screening values for
all other PB-HAP emitted from the source categories (cadmium compounds,
lead compounds, and mercury compounds) were less than 1.
The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold based on actual and
allowable emissions of PB-HAP and acid gases emitted by the source
categories.
We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and
proposed that the risks posed by the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source categories are acceptable (see section
IV.B.1 of the proposal preamble, 84 FR 18939, May 2, 2019).
[[Page 14532]]
The EPA then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL,
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
whether, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, standards are required to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In considering whether standards are required to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we
considered the same risk factors that we considered for our
acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category. The EPA proposed that additional or
revised standards for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories are not required to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. The Agency also proposed
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. See section IV.B.2 of the
proposal preamble, 84 FR 18939, May 2, 2019.
2. How did the residual risk review change for the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
As part of the final risk assessment, the EPA reanalyzed risks
using emissions inventory updates that were received for two specific
facilities during the public comment period. These updates included
revised actual emissions, allowable emissions, and acute emissions for
numerous pollutants from three different emission units at one facility
(i.e., a blowing still and two asphalt storage tanks) and revised
formaldehyde acute emission rates from four asphalt storage tanks at
another facility. The revised emissions used to reanalyze risks are
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Our assessment of the effects of these changes resulted in no
change to the maximum lifetime cancer risk for the source categories
(i.e., the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is below 1-in-1
million from both actual and allowable emissions). Also, the maximum
chronic noncancer HI for the source categories remains less than 1. The
maximum screening level acute HQ decreased from 4 to less than 1. Table
3 summarizes the inhalation risk assessment results for the final rule.
For the reanalyzed multipathway screening level assessment, the maximum
Tier 2 PB-HAP screening value decreased from 2 to less than 1, based on
revised emissions received during the comment period. Finally, the
environmental risk screening level assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold for all PB-HAP and
acid gases emitted by the source category. As described in other
sections of this preamble, the updated HAP emissions estimates that we
received in the public comments resulted in increased emissions for
some HAP and decreased emissions for other HAP. After incorporating the
new emissions data and rerunning the risk model, the estimated acute
risk levels decreased because the emissions estimates for the acute
risk driver HAP (i.e., acrolein and formaldehyde) were revised to lower
estimates based on comments. The updated emissions estimates are
provided in updated risk input files (i.e., HEM files) which are
available in the docket. In summary, the new information and reanalyzed
risks did not cause a change to the proposed determination that risks
caused by emissions from these source categories are acceptable, and
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Additional details
of the reanalyzed risks can be found in the Residual Risk Assessment
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 3--Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Final Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population at Estimated annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum
cancer risk (in 1 increased risk of cancer incidence (cases per noncancer TOSHI screening acute
million) 2 >= 1-in-1 million year) -------------------------- noncancer HQ
Number of facilities 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Based on actual Based on actual Based on actual Based on actual Based on actual
emissions level 2 3 emissions level 3 emissions level 3 emissions level 3 emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................. <1 0 0.0009 0.03 HQREL = 0.5
(arsenic).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories.
3 Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.
3. What key comments did we receive on the residual risk review, and
what are our responses?
Comment: One commenter said that the EPA's risk modeling file does
not reflect the correct emission records for their facility
(CertainTeed Corp, Shakopee MN), which they provided to the EPA in
December 2017. The commenter submitted, in Microsoft Excel format,
proposed revisions to the EPA's risk modeling file that mirror the
corrections that were submitted to the EPA in December 2017 plus one
additional correction; these revisions include updates to actual,
allowable, and acute emissions for three different emission units
(i.e., a blowing still and two asphalt storage tanks).
Another commenter explained that they compared ``actual allowable''
annual emissions of risk-driving HAP (those HAP contributing at least
10 percent of the overall maximum cancer risk and maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI) used in the EPA's risk modeling file against the most
recent facility-provided responses to the CAA section 114 information
collection request (ICR). The commenter claimed that there are two
facilities (110000768312 and 110000347018) that have revisions to the
CAA section 114 survey data that have not yet been incorporated into
the assessment of chronic hazards and advocated that these facilities'
revisions be incorporated into the final risk modeling. The commenter
also stated that, other than these revisions, their review did not
identify any significant errors in the inputs to the EPA's Human
Exposure Model (HEM-3) risk modeling
[[Page 14533]]
results. The commenter stated that the EPA overestimated risk for
acrolein emissions from a blowing still at Facility 110000768312. The
commenter explained that the acrolein maximum hourly emission rate of
the blowing still (HEM-3 source ID CESC0001) used in the EPA's risk
modeling file should be revised to 0.0146 pounds per hour (0.0639 tpy)
in lieu of the value used in the EPA's analysis (i.e., 19.4 tpy). The
commenter contended that because this blowing still is the only source
of acrolein emissions at this facility, the acute HQ decreases linearly
with the emission rate; and the commenter estimated the revised maximum
acute HQ to be 0.008. The commenter also noted that with their
revisions to the acrolein emission rates, the acute risk driver for the
facility becomes formaldehyde, which has a maximum acute HQ of 0.044.
The commenter provided an aerial photo of the specific facility and the
corresponding acute HQs for acrolein and formaldehyde at HEM-3 polar
receptor locations.
A third commenter stated that the EPA must subject CertainTeed's
(Facility 110000768312) acrolein emissions to emission limits. The
commenter stated that the EPA relied on the acute exposure guideline
level (AEGL) value to conclude that an ample margin of safety was
already provided, but that all the EPA reports is that the Agency did
not ``identify any processes, practices, or control technologies'' to
reduce acrolein emissions. The commenter disagreed with EPA's
conclusion that, ``acrolein-specific standards . . . are not necessary
to provide an ample margin of safety,'' stating that it is not clear
how one follows from the other.
The commenter stated that the EPA is not lost for options under
this analysis if control technology and practices fail to provide an
ample margin of safety, and that it must go beyond what may suffice for
a technology review posture. The commenter argued that the EPA must
consider setting emissions limits, rather than performance standards or
control requirements, where--as with CertainTeed--a facility's emission
levels and performance standards do not provide an ample margin of
protection. The commenter alleged that the EPA ignored the fact that
its own data show this facility to be the only facility with
significant acrolein emissions, and the EPA doesn't bother to ask why
this facility is an outlier.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Asphalt RRA Attachment_3--Actual allowable emissions Asphalt
HEMInput HAPEmis Grp 1of 1 CatLevel 20171212. Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0662-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The Agency first wants to clarify that one of the
commenters revised their comment after the public comment period
closed, by naming only one facility (110000768312) (and not Facility
110000347018) as having revisions to the CAA section 114 survey data
that had not yet been incorporated into risk modeling (see email from
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) to the EPA dated
July 8, 2019, which is available in the docket for this action).
Second, regarding the corrected emission records that were provided to
the EPA in December 2017 for this facility (110000768312), the 2017
cover letter that was submitted to the EPA requested that the EPA
correct the emissions in two specific cells pertaining to chromic acid
emissions. The Agency corrected those chromic acid emissions as
requested and they are reflected in the modeling file that was used for
the proposed risk assessment. However, based on the comments received
during the public comment period, we also learned that there were
several other emissions data cells in the 2017 CAA section 114 ICR that
the facility wanted corrected (i.e., changes to actual, allowable, and
acute emissions for three different emission units, including a blowing
still and two asphalt storage tanks). The EPA reviewed these revised
emissions estimates and determined them to be valid. All of the
revisions requested by the facility have been incorporated and correct
the emissions originally entered in error. Some of these revisions
correct overestimated values (by decreasing pollutant-specific
emissions), and the remaining revisions correct underestimated values
(by increasing pollutant-specific emissions). We assessed whether all
of the revised emissions were reasonable by comparing the revised
emissions to other similar emissions sources in the source category. We
also confirmed that there were no changes to any stack parameters,
dimensions of fugitive sources, coordinates, or other inputs not
related to emissions. Using those revised emissions, the EPA reassessed
risks from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities. The revised emissions did not result in any changes to our
proposed determination that risks caused by emissions from these source
categories are acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. The revised maximum acute HQ screening value is
0.5, based on a REL for arsenic compounds. The two HQ screening values
that were greater than 1 in the risk assessment performed for the
proposal (a refined, or off-site, HQ of 4 for formaldehyde and 2 for
acrolein, both based on a REL) are now both less than 1 (0.3 and 0.08,
respectively, and again based on a REL). Therefore, no pollutant
exceeded any acute health benchmark (i.e., REL, AEGL, Emergency
Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG)) in our screening-level acute
assessment. More details on the revised risk assessment is available in
the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.
Comment: One commenter submitted a correction to the EPA's risk
modeling file for the formaldehyde maximum emission rate of four
asphalt storage tanks (i.e., emission unit IDs T014, T015, T016, and
T021) at the Owens Corning Medina County Plant, Facility Registry
Service ID 110000388919. The commenter provided calculations showing
that the formaldehyde maximum emission rate for each of these four
storage tanks should be 0.0429 tpy. Similarly, another commenter
attested that the EPA overestimated risk for formaldehyde emissions
from these four storage tanks (at Facility 110000388919). Based on the
facility corrected values, this commenter estimated the revised maximum
acute HQ to be 0.2. The commenter provided an aerial photo of the
specific facility and the corresponding acute HQs for formaldehyde at
HEM-3 polar receptor locations.
Another commenter argued that EPA's evaluation of potential control
options for Owen Corning's formaldehyde emissions is flawed. The
commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that ``additional emissions
controls'' for storage tanks ``are not necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety.'' The commenter stated that EPA's dismissal of
formaldehyde controls must be revisited without consideration of costs
and instead focus on whether these controls are necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
The commenter noted the EPA's acknowledgement of the HQ of 4 but
challenged the EPA's conclusion that eliminating this risk is a ``small
risk reduction.'' The commenter stated that it is unclear why the EPA
thinks cost-per-ton is the proper metric for the EPA's analysis of
cost, when small amounts of highly toxic pollutants can present a
significant risk. As an example, the commenter referenced the
[[Page 14534]]
EPA's finding that a moderate amount of emissions of formaldehyde from
facilities overall contributed to about 48 percent of increased cancer
incidence. The commenter stated that the EPA fails to consider the
relevant factors--impact on health, public safety, and the risks
posed--in favor of a misleadingly high cost-per-ton estimate.
The commenter further argued that the EPA never explains how the
current standards manage to both produce an HQ of 4--a threat to the
health of the exposed public--while also providing an ample margin of
safety for that same public; the EPA merely concludes that it is so.
The commenter stated that the EPA cannot validly explain this
conclusion because the two are irreconcilable, and that the EPA can
only point to cost, which it is not statutorily allowed to consider.
The commenter added that, even as-is, it is unclear why the EPA is
even estimating the cost of control in its analysis, claiming the EPA
should be able to get actual costs from existing facilities' records,
or at minimum, an estimate from an actual control supplier rather than
attempting to cobble its own together. The commenter argued that
relying on estimates just injects more unnecessary uncertainty into the
EPA's analysis.
Response: The EPA reviewed the revised emissions estimates for
formaldehyde provided during the comment period and determined those
emissions were valid. The revised formaldehyde emission rates are based
on corrections discovered during a permit review by Owens Corning of
four asphalt storage tanks. Previously, the sum of emissions for all
individual volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the four asphalt
storage tanks exceeded the maximum potential to emit for THC, which is
physically impossible and would greatly overestimate risk. Owens
Corning revised the formaldehyde emission rates based on the emission
factors listed in Jankousky (2003).\3\ The emission factors in the
Jankousky study were subsequently peer-reviewed and published in a
scientific research journal (Trumbore et al., 2005).\4\ Using those
revised emissions, the EPA reassessed risks from asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The revised emissions did not
cause us to change our proposed determination that risks due to
emissions from these source categories are acceptable, and that the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Based on the reassessment
of risk, the maximum acute HQ screening value for the categories is
0.5, based on an REL for arsenic compounds. The HQ screening value of 4
for formaldehyde in the risk assessment performed for the proposal is
now less than 1 (0.3). Therefore, no pollutant exceeded any acute
health benchmark (i.e., REL, AEGL, ERPG) in our revised screening-level
acute assessment. More details on the revised risk assessment is
available in the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Jankousky, Angela Libby. Proposed Emission Factors for
Criteria Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing. ARMA. May 12, 2003.
\4\ Trumbore et al. Emission factors for asphalt[hyphen]related
emissions in roofing manufacturing. October 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment about it being unclear why the EPA estimated
control costs, as described in the proposed rule preamble, published on
May 2, 2019 (84 FR 18926), under the risk review, the EPA follows 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) \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 18926), the EPA
proposed that risks were acceptable for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing. Therefore, the EPA proceeded to the second step
(i.e., the ample margin of safety analysis) for these source
categories. Consistent with the framework described above, in the RTR
proposal, under this second step, the EPA considered all the health
information and other factors including costs to determine whether or
not any revisions to the standards were warranted under CAA section
112(f)(2). As explained in the proposal preamble and again in this
preamble, we did not identify any cost-effective controls or other
measures to reduce risks further. Therefore, we proposed that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety and additional or
revised standards are not warranted. Furthermore, as described in other
sections of this final rule preamble, after considering the public
comments and revising some of our analyses, we continue to conclude
that risks are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety.
With regard to the derivation of our cost estimates, we used
methodologies published in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual.\6\ The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual is widely used by
the EPA in developing cost estimates for regulatory standards. The cost
algorithms are considered sufficient for determining economic impacts
and whether controls are cost effective. The manual's cost algorithms
were originally developed from vendor information (and in many cases,
this involves contact with hundreds of vendors and the assimilation of
large amounts of data) and meant to apply to all situations where the
control device can be used. The algorithms can also provide site-
specific costs by using site-specific inputs, such as flow rate,
pollutants being controlled, temperature, etc. Site-specific costs are
often difficult to obtain directly from facilities and are frequently
considered proprietary by vendors. We maintain that using the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual to estimate costs for regulatory
standards is appropriate. Although industry average prices for certain
cost components in our analyses have not been updated to one base year;
we updated these component costs to 2017 dollars using the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's use of a ``low
confidence'' Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference
concentration
[[Page 14535]]
(RfC) of 0.02 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) to assess health
risk from HCl. Instead, the commenter argued that the 2000 California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) value of 9 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) (0.009 mg/m\3\) should be used to assess chronic noncancer risk.
The commenter explained that the IRIS value was one that IRIS had
stated it planned to update when additional data became available, but
that update has not occurred, and that, in such circumstances, the
EPA's own prioritization policy directs it to use the best available
science, which would include the CalEPA OEHHA value.
The commenter stated that, by not using the CalEPA OEHHA value, the
EPA underestimates the chronic noncancer risk from HCl. Additionally,
the commenter asserted that the EPA did not attempt to evaluate the
cancer risk for HCl, and that the EPA has not conducted a ``complete
evaluation and determination under'' the ``IRIS program for evidence of
human carcinogenic potential.'' The commenter indicated that the Court
has held that the EPA must analyze the carcinogenic potential of HCl in
order to ``base its findings'' of no carcinogenic risk ``on substantial
evidence,'' Sierra Club v. EPA, 895 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2018), and
that, therefore, underestimating HCl emissions impacts the EPA's
findings of chronic noncancer and cancer risk. The commenter argued
that ignoring the potential for carcinogenic risk from HCl is
arbitrary.
Response: For the CAA section 112(f)(2) risk reviews, we use dose-
response information that has been obtained from various sources and
prioritized according to (1) conceptual consistency with the EPA risk
assessment guidelines and (2) level of peer review received. The
prioritization process is aimed at incorporating into our assessments
the best available science with respect to dose-response information.
The recommendations are based on the following sources: (1) The EPA,
(2) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and (3)
CalEPA.\7\ In selecting the appropriate chronic noncancer dose-response
value for HCl for use in the risk assessment, in this case, the 1995
EPA IRIS RfC, we followed this prioritization approach, and we reviewed
newer values as part of that process. The 1995 EPA IRIS RfC for HCl of
0.02 mg/m\3\ was based on the following studies: Sellakumar et al.,
1985 \8\ and Albert et al., 1982.\9\ The ATSDR has not established a
chronic noncancer dose-response value for HCl. In 2000, CalEPA
established a chronic REL of 9 [mu]g/m\3\ (9 x 10-3 mg/m\3\)
\10\ based on Sellakumar et al., 1985. CalEPA did not use newer data
than the EPA in establishing its chronic REL for HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Documentation of this approach is in the EPA report titled
Risk and Technology (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review
by the EPA's Science Advisory Board: Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum
Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. June 2009. EPA-
452/R-09-006. This approach is also documented in the risk
assessment technical support document for the RTR NESHAP rulemaking
(and included in the rulemaking docket).
\8\ Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert.
1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in
rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401-406.
\9\ Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N.
Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous Formaldehyde and Hydrogen
Chloride Induction of Nasal Cancer in Rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
68(4): 597-603.
\10\ Technical Support Document for the Derivation of Non-Cancer
Reference Exposure Levels: Appendix D.3, pp. 309-312. (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/appendixd3final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessments completed prior to 2000, the EPA assigned confidence
ratings (low, medium, high) to the dose-response value (e.g., RfC). The
ratings assignment was based generally on the extent and robustness of
the database (e.g., number and types of different toxicity test
studies, quality of the studies, suitability of the test results for
use in dose-response assessment). In the process of assessing the
toxicity of a substance, if enough data from relevant studies and of
acceptable quality do not exist, the EPA IRIS program does not
establish a dose-response value. For HCl, the available data were
judged adequate for establishment of an RfC.\11\ In recognition of
limitations in the overall database and the principal study, the
resultant RfC for HCl was given a confidence rating of low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. EPA. 1995. IRIS Chemical Assessment Summary for
Hydrogen Chloride. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0396_summary.pdf#nameddest=rfc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA IRIS program has not assigned a carcinogenicity weight of
evidence classification to HCl. Little research has been conducted on
the carcinogenicity of HCl. (79 FR 75639.) There are limited studies on
the carcinogenic potential of HCl in humans. Of these, two occupational
studies failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to
other substances shown to have carcinogenic activity and are,
therefore, not appropriate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of
HCl (Steenland et al., 1988, Beaumont et al., 1986).12 13
Another occupational study failed to show evidence of association
between exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing
plant employees (Bond et al., 1991).\14\ (80 FR 65488.) Consistent with
the human data, chronic inhalation studies in animals have reported no
carcinogenic responses after chronic exposure to HCl (Albert et al.,
1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).15 16 (80 FR 65488.) Hydrogen
chloride has not been demonstrated to be genotoxic. The genotoxicity
literature consists of two studies showing false positive results
potentially associated with low pH in the test system (Morita et al.,
1992; Cifone et al., 1987).17 18 (80 FR 65488.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T.
Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid
mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766-776.
\13\ Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T.
McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E.
Halperin. 1987. Lung cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric
acid mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911-921.
\14\ Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung
cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case-
control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958-61.
\15\ Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N.
Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen
chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
68(4): 597-603.
\16\ Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E.
Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride
in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401-406.
\17\ Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992.
Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat.
Res. 268: 297-305.
\18\ Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987.
Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase
locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also
classifies agents (chemicals and biologics) as to carcinogenicity. The
IARC classifies HCl as ``not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to
humans.'' \19\ Of the more than 1,000 agents classified by IARC, no
agents are classified as ``probably not carcinogenic (IARC) to
humans.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IARC Monographs, Volume 54, https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono54.pdf.
\20\ IARC Monographs, July 8, 2019 update. https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court decision cited by the commenter, Sierra Club v. EPA, 895
F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), addressed the basis for setting a health-based
emission limit for HCl under section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, and not for
making a determination about risk acceptability under section 112(f)(2)
of the CAA.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the residual risk review?
As noted in the proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2)
[[Page 14536]]
using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first
step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of ``approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all
health risk measures and factors in the risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer
risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties. As described above,
in the second step, we also consider other factors including costs and
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant
to each particular decision.
Since proposal, we reanalyzed risk after incorporating new
emissions data that were received for several emission sources at two
facilities; however, after revising risk estimates using these new
emissions data, determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects have not changed.
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and in section IV.A.2 of
this preamble, we determined that the risks from both source categories
are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Therefore, the EPA is not revising the standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and the Agency
is readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
B. Technology Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Source Categories
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for asphalt
loading racks and asphalt storage tanks in the Asphalt Processing
source category and for coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating
mixers, sealant and adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage tanks in
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source category. We did not find any
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
could be applied to asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks,
coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant
applicators, or adhesive (laminate) applicators and that could be used
to reduce emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities. The EPA also did not identify any
developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or
process changes that could achieve emission reductions from these
emissions sources.
Also, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for blowing
stills in the Asphalt Processing source category. We did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, nor
any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or
process changes to control organic HAP from blowing stills at asphalt
processing facilities. However, for owners or operators that use a
chlorinated catalyst in the blowing still during asphalt processing, we
identified two potential HCl (an inorganic HAP) emission reduction
options: (1) Installing a packed bed scrubber at the outlet of the
blowing still (or at the outlet of the combustion device controlling
organic HAP emissions); and (2) installing a dry sorbent injection and
fabric filter at the outlet of the blowing still. In addition, we
considered whether it might be feasible for facilities that need to use
a catalyst to only use non-chlorinated substitute catalysts. However,
we did not identify a viable non-chlorinated catalyst substitute. We
also note that the average capital costs for option 1 would be about
$2,480,000 per facility, the average annualized costs would be about
$500,000 per facility, and the average HCl cost would be about $60,000
per ton. We also determined that the costs for option 2 would be higher
than the costs for option 1. Because the estimated risks due to HCl
emissions are low and based on the relatively high costs per facility
for each of the options, we proposed to conclude that neither of these
options is necessary for reducing HCl emissions from blowing stills
that use chlorinated catalysts.
In addition, we solicited comment on the relationship between the
CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and the CAA section 112(f)
residual risk review. We solicited comment on whether revisions to the
NESHAP are ``necessary,'' as the term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6),
in situations where the EPA has determined that CAA section 112(d)
standards evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In other words, we solicited comment on whether
it is ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on developments in
technologies, practices, or processes under CAA section 112(d)(6) if
remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source category
have already been reduced to levels that provide an ample margin of
safety under CAA section 112(f). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (``The
Administrator shall review and revise as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies),
emission standards promulgated under [CAA section 112] no less often
than every 8 years.'').
2. How did the technology review change for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
Although the EPA proposed to conduct a technology review for
previously unregulated HCl emissions from blowing stills, we are
withdrawing all aspects of the technology review proposal for HCl from
blowing stills. Furthermore, we are clarifying that setting initial
standards for previously unregulated emission points or pollutants is
not part of the technology review that is required under CAA section
112(d)(6) (refer to section IV.B.3 of this preamble) and that it would
be contrary to the provisions and structure of CAA section 112 to
establish such standards for the first time under CAA section
112(d)(6). In short, under the CAA, while the EPA has the discretion
(and authority) to set initial standards for previously unregulated
emissions at the same time and in the same rulemaking process that it
conducts a technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), setting such
initial standards is not part of the technology review required under
CAA section 112(d)(6). We are finalizing all remaining aspects of the
technology review as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has avoided their
obligation to ``review and revise, as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and pollution control
technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no
less often than every 8 years'' (CAA section 112(d)(6)), by refusing to
demonstrate that it has completed an effective technology review and
has assessed and accounted for developments, which is
[[Page 14537]]
unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter said that the EPA did not comply
with the CAA section 112(d)(6) requirements in conducting the
technology review. The commenter explained that the EPA only reviewed
information it already had or technology it already mandated from three
sources of information and did not look at state requirements, foreign
control methods, different methods or brands of controls to see which
was most effective, efficient, or reliable; requirements likely to
promote future technological progress; or facility procedures or best
practices, such as best practices to mitigate malfunctions. The
commenter added that the EPA should have requested information from
actual pollution control manufacturers and distributors and provided
the information for notice and comment.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the EPA has failed to
meet the CAA legal obligation to complete the technology review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories.
With respect to the information underlying this review, in June
2017, the EPA issued an ICR pursuant to CAA section 114, to collect
information from facilities that are currently considered to be part of
the Asphalt Processing source category and/or Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source category. The responses to the CAA section 114 ICR
reflect air regulations of national, state, and local jurisdictions.
Companies completed the survey for their facilities and submitted
responses to the EPA by September 30, 2017. As part of the CAA section
114 ICR, the EPA requested information about process equipment, control
technologies, point and fugitive emissions, and other aspects of
facility operations. Specifically, with regard to the CAA section
112(d)(6) review, the EPA asked each facility to ``. . . provide an
operation date and a description of any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies that [the facility] implemented
after the date [the facility] demonstrated initial compliance with
either Subpart LLLLL or subpart AAAAAAA that resulted in an increase or
decrease in HAP emissions from the emission unit.'' The responses to
this question identify requirements likely to promote future
technological progress, facility procedures, and best practices.
Furthermore, we asked specific questions about APCDs, other methods of
control, and compliance methods used by each facility for their blowing
stills, asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating mixers,
saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators,
adhesive (laminate) applicators, and mineral handling and storage
facilities. The EPA reviewed and compared the data received in response
to the CAA section 114 ICR to identify developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that have been implemented by
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. Based
on this analysis, facilities did not report developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies. A summary of this analysis is
included in Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Final,
which is available in the docket for this action.
We also reviewed the EPA's Reasonable Available Control Technology
(RACT), Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC),\21\ which is a database that
contains information on the best emission control technologies that
have been required by state, local, and territorial air pollution
control agencies. The search identified three facilities, and none of
these facilities have more stringent emission control requirements than
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards. In addition, we
conducted site visits to two asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities subject to the NESHAP (and one asphalt roofing
manufacturing facility not subject to the NESHAP). These site visits
did not reveal any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies. Furthermore, the EPA reviewed the operating permits for
all the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities
that were major sources and subject to the NESHAP. These operating
permits incorporate all relevant local, state, or regional emission
limitations, as well as Federal limitations. In almost all cases, the
EPA did not find local, state, or Regional emission limitation that
could be compared to the emission limitations in the current NESHAP
(given unit basis and format differences), and, thus, the EPA did not
identify limits that were more stringent than the limits in the current
NESHAP,\22\ neither did we find any facility using a control technology
that was not considered during development of the NESHAP and reflected
in the current standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ RACT/BACT/LAER apply to criteria pollutants only. However,
data in the RBLC are not limited to sources subject to RACT, BACT,
and LAER requirements. Noteworthy prevention and control technology
decisions and information may be included in the database even if
they are not related to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions.
\22\ In one case, we identified a less stringent state-only VOC
control efficiency requirement for an incinerator controlling
emissions from blowing stills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA is not aware of any advances in emission control
technology that are being used elsewhere and that are applicable to
these source categories. We are not aware of any applicable advances in
emission control technology that are being used in other countries. We
did not receive any comments from any air pollution control
manufacturers or from the Institute of Clean Air Companies. No
commenters provided any data or information on emissions control
techniques beyond those techniques that we already have considered in
conducting this technology review. It would not be feasible for the EPA
to examine different brands of emission controls to see which was most
effective, efficient, or reliable, as suggested by the commenter. That
information is not currently available to the EPA, and even if it were,
it would be difficult, if not impossible, to correlate that information
with emissions performance and develop practical regulatory
requirements. Instead, the current MACT floors are based on each type
of process equipment used at asphalt processing facilities and on
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. The majority of data used for the
MACT floor analysis were obtained from responses to a survey
distributed by ARMA in 1995. To identify the best performing sources
and amount of emission reduction, the level of control for each piece
of process equipment was based on the type of control device installed
and the operating characteristics of the control device. After the
initial compliance demonstration, facilities using add-on controls must
comply with operating limits to ensure the add-on controls continue to
be properly operated and maintained and achieve the same level of
performance as during the performance test. Facilities experiencing
deviations from the emission limits or the operating limits must report
these deviations to the EPA, and the Agency will then determine on a
case-by-case basis whether the deviation constitutes a violation. Also,
because of the diversity of factors that could lead to a malfunction in
these source categories, it would not be practical for the EPA to
prescribe the actions that must be taken to reduce the frequency of
malfunctions or to minimize emissions in the event of a malfunction.
However, as part of the required deviation record, owners and operators
must specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a
malfunction period as a cause (e.g., any
[[Page 14538]]
malfunction that leads to a deviation from an emission limit, operating
limit, opacity limit, or visible emission limit).
Comment: One commenter asserted that they had submitted a petition
for rulemaking to the EPA, urging the EPA to set an emission standard
for HCl from blowing stills that use chlorinated catalyst and to follow
CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3) requirements in doing so. The commenter cited
Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council & Sierra Club to
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, at 13 (January 14, 2009). The
commenter contended that the EPA has provided no formal response to
that petition for this or any source category and instead used CAA
section 112(d)(6) rulemakings to add standards for previously
unregulated HAP emissions sources on a source category-by-category
basis.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The commenter cited the following rulemakings as examples
where EPA has added standards for previously unregulated HAP
emissions sources for certain emission points: Primary Lead NESHAP,
Final Rule, 76 FR 70834 (November 15, 2011); Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP, 74 FR 55670 (October 28, 2009); Generic MACT NESHAP, Final
Rule, 79 FR 60898 (October 8, 2014); Polymers & Resins Group IV;
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; Polyether Polyols Prod.
NESHAP, Final Rule, 79 FR 17340 (March 27, 2014); Polymers & Resins
I NESHAP, Final Rule, 76 FR 22566, 22569 (April 21, 2011); and Oil
and Gas NESHAP, 77 FR 49490, 49492, 49530 (August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter claimed that the EPA has failed to satisfy the CAA
because it has failed to recognize the need to set emission standards
for currently unrestricted HAP--such as HCl--which is ``necessary'' and
required by the CAA. The commenter added that, in this rulemaking, the
EPA must review and follow the CAA and existing caselaw to ensure it
sets a numerical limit for HCl and every other regulated HAP that
satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3) and (d)(6).
The commenter concluded that the best-performing sources emit no
HCl and the EPA should have set the floor based on the best-performing
sources. The commenter noted that HCl emissions from blowing stills
account for 55 percent of emissions and no facility controls these
emissions. The commenter pointed out that 37 out of 91 blowing stills
at asphalt manufacturing plants use chloride-based catalysts, which
cause HCl emissions. The commenter added that the EPA acknowledged that
over 12 percent of blowing stills do not use a catalyst that emits HCl.
This commenter objected to the EPA's decision not to regulate HCl
emissions and objected to the bases for the EPA's decision, which
include that: (1) Sources do not use control devices, and (2)
chlorinated catalysts cannot be prohibited because doing so would
require all manufacturers to use higher-quality asphalt flux feedstock,
and higher-quality feedstock is not consistently available to all
sources. The commenter cited the decision in National Lime Association
v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, at 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000), stating that the EPA had
a clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed
HAP. The commenter added that the EPA's assertions, that changes in
non-technology factors were not appropriate or viable, cannot justify a
no-control floor. The commenter added that the EPA has a statutory
obligation to set emission limits regardless of whether the best-
performing sources in a given category are currently using air
pollution control technology to limit their emissions. The commenter
stated that if it fails to set emission limits for each HAP, the EPA
will fail to complete the review and revision rulemaking as CAA section
112(d)(6) requires and will violate the Court's order in California
Communities Against Toxics v. Pruitt, 241 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.D.C.
2017).
The commenter asserted that an HCl standard should have been set
based on the performance of scrubbers used for other sources, noting
specifically scrubbers reflected in the control options for the
Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators New Source
Performance Standards. The commenter added that this is a development
in practices, processes, and control technologies and the EPA has no
valid basis under CAA section 112(d)(6) for not revising the standards
to reflect or take this development into account. The commenter added
that because the EPA has identified spray dryer absorbers as an
additional type of control for HCl, these controls must be evaluated as
``developments'' that could strengthen emission reductions of HCl.
Furthermore, the commenter contended that there are also developments
in monitoring of acid gases--particularly HCl. The commenter noted that
the EPA has required monitoring of HCl in multiple national standards
in recent years, and the EPA should strengthen monitoring in this rule
due to these demonstrated developments.
Another commenter argued that because the EPA identified blowing
still technologies that emit no HCl, a standard for HCl emissions from
new blowing stills should be established at zero. The commenter stated
that while the EPA does ``not anticipate any air quality impacts'' from
these emissions, this does not justify allowing emissions greater than
the MACT floor.
Response: CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and
revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated
under this section. We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that
the EPA must establish new standards for unregulated emission points or
pollutants as part of a technology review of the existing standards.
The EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring
the Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the emission standards
already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise those standards as
necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies. Nothing in CAA section 112(d)(6) directs the
Agency, as part of or in conjunction with the mandatory 8-year
technology review, to develop new emission standards to address HAP or
emission points for which standards were not previously promulgated. As
shown by the statutory text and the structure of CAA section 112, CAA
section 112(d)(6) does not impose upon the Agency any obligation to
promulgate emission standards for previously unregulated emissions.
When the EPA establishes standards for previously unregulated
emissions, we would not establish those initial standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) but instead would establish the standards under
one of the provisions that govern initial standard setting--CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA
section 112(d)(4) or CAA section 112(h). Establishing emissions
standards under these provisions of the CAA involves a different
analytical approach from reviewing emissions standards under CAA
section 112(d)(6).
Though the EPA has discretion (and authority) to develop standards
under CAA section 112(d)(2) through (4) and CAA section 112(h) for
previously unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency
completes the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, any such action is not part
of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, and there is no obligation to
undertake such actions at the same time as the CAA section 112(d)(6)
review. For this rulemaking, we do not have sufficient data to
establish an emissions standard that reasonably reflects the
performance of the best sources pursuant to the requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3).\24\ We have data from one
[[Page 14539]]
emission test from a single facility and it would take significant
time, well beyond the court-ordered deadline for completing this
rulemaking, to acquire sufficient additional data and other emissions
information and perform the analyses needed to establish an appropriate
standard under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Further, given the court-
ordered deadline of March 13, 2020, we do not have time to collect the
needed data and information. Therefore, it is impracticable for the EPA
to establish new standards for previously unregulated emissions as part
of this rulemaking.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ We also note that, given the currently available
information, establishing standards for HCl from blowing stills
under CAA section 112(d)(4) or (h) would not be appropriate.
\25\ While not related to the technology review, we note that
related to the residual risk review, we found the risks associated
with the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories to be acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety in the absence of additional CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) standards for unregulated pollutants. The HCl
emissions from blowing stills were included in the residual risk
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter contended that the EPA must evaluate and
require use of the Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT) as a method
for assessing and demonstrating compliance with the opacity limits in
the emission standards. The commenter noted that the Agency has
required use of the DCOT in the Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX) and supported its use
because it provides a photographic record of each of the opacity
readings, allows for third-party evaluation, and provides better
documentation of fugitive emissions. The commenter added that the EPA
determined the DCOT is a development in monitoring and will improve the
facility's, the EPA's, and the state's ability to assure compliance
with the standards. The commenter stated that the EPA noted that the
DCOT provides reliable, unbiased opacity readings and required this
rather than the human eye-based, visual-only smoke assessment protocol
of EPA Method 9. The commenter concluded that because DCOT is a
``development'' within the meaning of CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA
must take it into account and require use of it in this rule. The
commenter contended that failing to do so would also be unlawful,
arbitrary, and capricious.
Response: We are not finalizing a requirement to use DCOT in place
of EPA Method 9 for this rule. The DCOT system, as required in the
Ferroalloys rule, uses a handheld American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D7520-16 compliant camera system, which was only
available from a single vendor at the time. There are currently no
vendors supplying the portable ASTM D7520-16 compliant systems. The
only DCOT systems currently available are customized fixed-location
camera systems. We conclude that it is inappropriate to require the
fixed location camera systems for this industry due to the relatively
high cost associated with emplacing the large number of individual
camera units that would be needed, one at each emission point for the
intermittent opacity readings, in addition to the difficulty in
positioning the fixed location cameras to obtain a suitable background
and orientation with the sun and plume throughout the day at existing
source locations. Further, the advantage of the DCOT system, as
discussed in the preamble of the final Ferroalloys rule, is in having
better documentation ``. . . in this specific case where fugitive
emissions are driving the risk . . .'' Fugitive emissions are not the
driving risk for the NESHAP for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source categories. Nevertheless, the EPA is not
precluding ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, from being used
to comply with the opacity standards in this rule and, as proposed, has
included this method with conditions as an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 9.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA should update its regulations
regarding asphalt storage tanks to require controls of all storage
tanks. The commenter added that the EPA acknowledged that currently 428
out of 540 asphalt storage tanks are controlled using a packed bed
scrubber or a thermal incinerator. The remaining 112 are uncontrolled
and vent straight to the atmosphere. The commenter stated that the EPA
should explain why it is not necessary to extend these control
requirements to the remainder of the storage tanks.
Response: Based on information received in response to the CAA
section 114 ICR, we have determined that there are no uncontrolled
asphalt storage tanks that are subject to the requirements for Group 2
storage tanks under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards.
To clarify, it is true that, based on the CAA section 114 ICR, the EPA
initially identified 428 asphalt storage tanks that are fixed roof
tanks that vent to either a combustion control device or to a PM
control device and another 112 asphalt storage tanks that are fixed
roof tanks or horizontal tanks that vent to the atmosphere
(uncontrolled). However, we also stated in our proposed technology
review that the 112 uncontrolled asphalt storage tanks are either
considered Group 2 under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT
standards or operate at an area source of HAP. After additional
evaluation, we determined that only 11 of the 112 uncontrolled asphalt
storage tanks that we identified from our CAA section 114 ICR could
potentially be subject to the requirements for Group 2 storage tanks
under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards (because the
other 101 tanks operate at an area source of HAP and are not subject to
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards). Of the 11
uncontrolled Group 2 asphalt storage tanks, six are reported as shut
down, and after further investigation using responses from an industry-
wide ICR on petroleum refineries (refer to section II.C of 79 FR 36886
and 36887), we determined that the remaining five are located at one
petroleum refinery, have low vapor pressures (e.g., about 3.38E-05
pounds per square inch), and are subject to either 40 CFR part 60,
subpart UU, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart Ka, Kb, or CC (and not 40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLLLL). Finally, we want to clarify that Table 1 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, requires that Group 2 tanks be operated
such that exhaust gases are limited to 0-percent opacity. Any control
device or other method that can meet the 0-percent opacity standard for
storage tanks can be used, and it is possible that some facilities may
not need a control device to meet the opacity limit.
Comment: One commenter noted that in the Petroleum Refinery Sector
final rule at 80 FR 75178, 75193, and 75194 (December 1, 2015), the EPA
recognized as a ``development'' the availability of fenceline
monitoring technology and methods and, therefore, required all
facilities to implement these tools. The commenter added that the use
of fenceline monitoring, such as the passive samplers or absorbent
tubes that the EPA required using EPA Methods 325A and 325B, reflects
an up-to-date method to evaluate leaks of HAP. The commenter noted that
although in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule the EPA chose the
chemical benzene as the analyte, the tools the EPA required for
refineries can monitor for other pollutants as well. The commenter
added that since 2015, there have been even further ``developments'' in
fenceline monitoring, and local and state jurisdictions have required
implementation of real-time fenceline monitoring, using various types
of technology selected by the facility from approved methods and
presented for
[[Page 14540]]
public notice and comment. The commenter concluded that the EPA would
violate CAA section 112(d)(6) by failing to consider and account for
the ``developments'' in fenceline monitoring, and pollution controls
here--particularly where data show significant health risks from
emitted pollutants.
Response: We are not finalizing any requirements for fenceline
monitoring in the final rule. The passive samplers and adsorbent tubes
of EPA Methods 325A and 325B are a method of evaluating potential
fugitive and area source emissions of VOC and are not suitable for all
HAP. Fenceline monitoring, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed
Petroleum Refinery rule (79 FR 36920), may identify significant
increases in emissions, but small increases in emissions are unlikely
to impact the fenceline concentrations. The four refineries subject to
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards are also subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and currently have fenceline monitoring in
place under that rule. The potential for fugitive volatile organic HAP
emissions at the remaining four subject facilities not collocated at a
refinery is vastly lower as a result of the reduced amount of piping
and the reduced storage of volatile organic materials. The EPA
disagrees with the commenter that the data show significant health
risks from emitted pollutants. As noted in the Residual Risk Assessment
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source
Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, the maximum cancer risk from category emissions is less than 1-
in-1 million, and the maximum whole facility cancer risk is 9-in-1
million, driven by non-category refinery emissions, at a facility which
already has fenceline monitoring due to the Petroleum Refinery rule.
Comment: We received two comments in response to our request for
comments on the relationship between the technology review conducted
under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the residual risk analysis under CAA
section 112(f)(2) and whether it is necessary for the EPA to amend
rules based on CAA section 112(d) to reflect the results of the CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review if the results of the residual risk
analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2) show that the current rule
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental effect. One commenter argued that the EPA must
complete the technology review and propose standards based on the
findings of that review, regardless of the results of the residual risk
analysis. Another commenter argued technology reviews need not consider
whether to reduce emission limits in response to developments in
emission control technologies as long as the health-based ample margin
of safety determination remains unchanged. For a more thorough summary
of these comments, refer to the comment summary and response document,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review
for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Response: The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed
interpretation that the EPA take into account in the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review the results of a residual risk analysis
under CAA section 112(f)(2). Instead, the EPA is finalizing our
determination that no revision to the NESHAP is necessary pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) based on our consideration of developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies, as explained above.
Because we are not relying on the potential interpretation that was
discussed in the proposal preamble in our final action, we are not
addressing the comments we received regarding the relationship between
the technology review conducted under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the
residual risk review conducted under CAA section 112(f)(2).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
The EPA is not finalizing the technology review as proposed with
regard to HCl emissions standards for blowing stills. As discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, we determined that it is not appropriate
to establish new standards for previously unregulated sources or
pollutants under the technology review. Pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are finalizing all required aspects of the technology
review as proposed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that warrant revisions to the standards. We
evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and we
determined no changes to the review are needed. More information
concerning our technology review is in the memorandum titled Clean Air
Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Final, in the docket for this
action, and in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 18939).
C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all
times. More information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in
the proposed rule (84 FR 18939).
2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
Since proposal, the SSM provisions have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are
our responses?
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's claims that they
have discretion to set standards for malfunctions ``where feasible.''
The commenter contended that the CAA denies the EPA authority to set
malfunction-based standards or exemptions; and cited CAA section
112(d), (h), and CAA section 302(k). The commenter also cited a
reconsideration petition for the Refinery Sector Rule, where
malfunction standards were developed, that the Court held in abeyance.
Response: The EPA disagrees that it lacks the authority to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible but notes that the EPA did
not propose separate standards for periods of malfunction. The EPA's
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute. At proposal, we explained our
interpretation of CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into the development of
CAA section 112 standards, and noted that this reading has been upheld
as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
606-10 (2016). (84 FR 18946.)
The EPA further explained that ``[a]lthough no statutory language
compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the
discretion to do so where feasible.'' (84 FR 18946). We explained that,
``[t]he EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting work
practice standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so,
whether the EPA has sufficient information to
[[Page 14541]]
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions'' (84 FR 18946).
The EPA is not finalizing separate standards for periods of
malfunction. As explained at proposal, in the unlikely 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). If the EPA
determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a
source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, 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 (84 FR 18946).
Comment: One commenter objected to the incorporation of 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) because it removes the requirement for a source to
correct a malfunction within a specified time period. The commenter
stated that the incorporation of this provision into the rule can
result in increased emissions; and it is unlikely that this potential
increase in emissions was accounted for in the risk assessment
conducted by the EPA. The commenter recommended the provision not be
incorporated into the final rule, and instead sources should be
required to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable but no
later than 72 hours from the start of the malfunction.
Response: The final rule does not incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
and (ii) as they are no longer applicable. The EPA is finalizing as
proposed 40 CFR 63.8685(b), which incorporates the general duty to
minimize emissions at all times. The finalized regulatory language at
40 CFR 63.8685(b) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. Since the EPA is eliminating the SSM exemption and the
standards are applicable at all times, there is no need to distinguish
among normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty.
Comment: One commenter said that because this rulemaking is being
conducted on a shorter-than-normal timetable due to judicial deadlines,
they did not have sufficient time to adequately study the proposed
revisions to SSM requirements and are unable to respond to the EPA's
request for recommendations on possible approaches. The commenter
asserted that different emission standards should be adopted to reflect
the realities of different operating conditions and reserves the right
to propose such standards at a later date. The commenter stated that
despite the EPA's interpretation of the Sierra Club v. EPA Court
ruling, it is an unsupportable position to require emissions sources
undergoing a condition of startup, shutdown or malfunction to comply
with an emission standard developed to reflect normal operations. The
commenter said that even to the extent that an acceptable work practice
standard can be developed for startup and shutdown emissions, the use
of ``enforcement discretion'' during periods of malfunction (when
emissions cannot be readily controlled) fails to qualify as an
attainable regulatory standard.
The commenter also stated that if the EPA decides to finalize its
proposal to eliminate the SSM exemptions, then they support the EPA's
proposed revisions to Table 7 addressing the General Provision
requirement to develop an SSM Plan and related provisions. The
commenter also agrees with the EPA's proposed revisions to eliminate
requirements that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant
consistent with the elimination of SSM provisions.
Response: The final rule text at 40 CFR 63.8685(b) sets forth the
general duty to minimize emissions, and states that, ``[a]t all times,
you 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 regulatory text further explains that
``[t]he general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved.'' Id.
As explained at proposal and as discussed earlier in this preamble
(in response to another comment we received), in the unlikely 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). If the EPA
determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a
source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, 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 summary, the EPA's interpretation of the
CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages
practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial
procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize
that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can
accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, 830 F.3d
579, 606-610 (2016) (84 FR 18946).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
SSM-related Requirements?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule
(84 FR 18939), we determined that these amendments remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. Therefore, we are finalizing the
amendments to remove and revise provisions related to SSM, as proposed.
D. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards
1. What other amendments did we propose for the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
We proposed to add an option at 40 CFR 63.8689(d) and Table 2 to
subpart LLLLL of part 63 to allow the use of
[[Page 14542]]
manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop
across the control device used to comply with the PM standards. We also
proposed to add a footnote to Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part 63, the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP, to allow
owners and operators to use the performance test average inlet
temperature and apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine
maximum inlet gas temperature of a control device used to comply with
the PM standards. Furthermore, we proposed a requirement at 40 CFR
63.8691(e) that periodic performance tests be conducted at least once
every 5 years for each APCD used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity,
or visible emission standards.
We also proposed that owners and operators submit electronic copies
of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA's CDX using the
CEDRI, and we proposed two broad circumstances in which we may provide
an extension to these requirements. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.8693(h)
that an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.8639(i) that
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an
act of nature, act of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
Finally, we proposed numerous provisions clarifying text or
correcting typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-
reference errors. These editorial corrections and clarifications are
summarized in Table 4 of the proposal. See 54 FR 18951 and 18952.
2. How did the other amendments for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source categories change since proposal?
Instead of using manufacturers' specifications or a performance
test to establish a maximum pressure drop across the control device
used to comply with the PM standards as proposed, we are finalizing a
requirement that requires owners and operators to establish a pressure
drop range (i.e., a minimum and a maximum pressure drop) across the PM
control device with the option to either use manufacturers'
specifications or a performance test to establish the range. Also,
although we are finalizing the proposed requirement that allows owners
and operators to apply an operating margin of +20 percent to the
performance test average inlet temperature to determine maximum inlet
gas temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM
standards, in the final rule, we are clarifying the operating margin
applies to temperatures expressed in units of degrees Celsius or
degrees Fahrenheit. Furthermore, in the final rule amendments, we have
added language to the periodic performance testing requirements to
allow facilities to synchronize their periodic performance testing
schedule with a previously conducted emission test. Since proposal, the
electronic reporting requirements and the technical and editorial
corrections in Table 4 of the proposal (see 54 FR 18951 and 18952) have
not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories,
and what are our responses?
Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed amendment to 40 CFR
63.8689(d) establishing maximum pressure drop as an operating limit for
particulate control devices is not a reliable indicator of continued
compliance because holes or other defects in the filter bags will
result in decreased pressure drop and an increase in emissions.
Response: The EPA agrees that the maximum pressure drop is
insufficient in itself to demonstrate ongoing compliance, as
malfunctions such as holes, leaks, and even bypass of the control
device would not be indicated by an exceedance of the pressure drop
maximum. The inclusion of pressure drop minimum, creating an operating
range for the pressure drop, provides a more complete indication of
filter bank performance. Therefore, to better assure proper operation
of the particulate control device, we are requiring in the final rule
at item 3 of Table 2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria
for each particulate control device include both a maximum and minimum
pressure drop operating limit as opposed to solely a maximum pressure
drop operating limit. The addition of a minimum limitation to the
operating range of the PM control device mirrors the approach in the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an indication of
breakthrough or bypass of the control device, as a drop in the
differential pressure below that established by the manufacturer's
specification would indicate that potentially either the control device
has been inadvertently bypassed (leaking around the filter) or possible
tearing or distortion of the filter has occurred. As discussed later in
this preamble (in response to another comment we received), we are also
clarifying in the final rule at item 12 of Table 3 procedures for
establishing the maximum and minimum pressure drop operating limits.
Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed amendment to 40
CFR 63.8689(d) allowing the use of manufacturers' recommendations to
establish operating limits for particulate control devices is not a
reliable indicator of continued compliance.
One commenter said that control system vendors may incorporate
components from various manufacturers in their systems and the
manufacturers may be unaware of the configuration. The commenter also
said that control systems may also be reconfigured from time to time to
reflect changes in the manufacturing process or the raw materials used,
and manufacturers are unable to predict these changes. Similarly,
another commenter asserted that the revisions change the limit from a
demonstrated point to an assumed point of compliance. The commenter
stated that manufacturer specifications may show where a control device
should operate within compliance but are not sufficient to show whether
a device is operating within compliance.
One commenter contended that the change was proposed in response to
industry's claim that tests to capture the maximum pressure drop and
gas temperature are difficult due to their dependence on ambient
temperature and operating life of the filter. The commenter added that
the EPA previously acceded to industry requests for pressure limits but
concluded that temperature was too important in evaluating emissions,
because emissions are temperature dependent. The commenter added that
the EPA made the change based on cost and cited the EPA's cost
memorandum, which reports that the switch will save industry nearly
half a million dollars, primarily by avoiding having to change out its
filters as often. The commenter concluded that industry asked the EPA
to save it some money by loosening its standards, and the EPA complied.
A commenter said that the EPA neither cites any authority, nor
supplies a reasoned explanation to demonstrate how this change
satisfies the CAA. The commenter added that the EPA may not change the
standards without demonstrating how the revised standard
[[Page 14543]]
satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2) through (3) and the EPA has no
authority to weaken the existing standard under CAA section 112(d)(6)
or otherwise. The commenter concluded that the EPA may not use cost to
set or weaken floor standards under CAA section 112(d)(3) or to weaken
standards below the ``maximum achievable degree of emission reduction''
under CAA section 112(d)(2).
A commenter alleged that the EPA failed to provide the emission and
health impacts of the revisions or the scientific or engineering basis
for the decision. The commenter added that the EPA did not explain how
or whether it validated industry claims that actually running tests
created difficulties due to scheduling, whether this change risks an
increase in malfunctions or emissions, the impact on the effectiveness
of filters when not switching them more frequently, and why
manufacturer specifications are sufficient to fit facilities that may
vary in their ambient conditions, in their equipment, and in their
production. The commenter added that by not providing these analyses,
the EPA has deprived the public of the opportunity to file meaningful
comments on the change, which is a violation of notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
Response: The EPA agrees that for some control technologies,
manufacturers' specifications may not be sufficient to determine
operating limits; however, manufacturers' specifications in conjunction
with the periodic performance tests are sufficient to demonstrate
compliance for the operation of filter banks such as those used in this
source category (where the replaceable parts are limited to the filters
themselves and the induced draft fan). Specifically, the EPA disagrees
that the use of manufacturers' specifications for the maximum pressure
drop is not a reliable indicator of filter bank performance at the
upper end of filter bank pressure drop. The EPA further disagrees that
the use of manufacturers' specifications in setting the maximum
pressure drop is a loosening of the standard. The efficiency of a
filter bank increases as the pressure drop increases through use
because the deposition of material on the filter forms a layer of dust
that decreases the effective pore size and increases capture
efficiency. The purpose of a maximum pressure drop as a regulatory
limit in the case of a filter bank is to prevent overloading of the
filter, which may eventually cause breakthrough or result in structural
damage to the filter or a possible bypass of the control device. The
use of manufacturers' specifications as an option for setting the
operating range allows for a facility to remain in compliance with the
operating limits when the filter is replaced, because that is the
moment at which the pressure drop of a properly functioning filter bank
is the lowest. As stated in our proposal, allowing use of
manufacturers' specifications to establish operating limits provides
flexibility and alleviates the need for a facility to have to retest
the PM control device to reestablish new operating limits due to the
inability of a source to ``dial in'' the differential pressure of their
control device for a particular performance test as the differential
pressure increases over time as a result of particulate deposition.
Finally, as discussed previously in this preamble (in response to
another comment), we are requiring in the final rule at item 3 of Table
2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria for each
particulate control device include both a maximum and minimum pressure
drop as opposed to solely a maximum pressure drop operating limit.
Therefore, in consideration of this comment and in order to provide
additional flexibility, we are clarifying in the final rule at 40 CFR
63.8689(d) that facilities may either use the manufacturers'
specifications or a performance test to set each operating limit. For
example, facilities may choose to establish the minimum pressure drop
operating limit using the manufacturer's specifications and choose to
establish the maximum pressure drop operating limit using a performance
test. In this example, the facility could use the performance test to
demonstrate that it can still meet the emission limit beyond the
maximum pressure drop recommended by the manufacturer's specifications.
Comment: One commenter supported allowing facilities a 20-percent
margin of compliance on the average inlet temperature of a PM control
device other than a thermal oxidizer. The commenter stated that it is
typically necessary to schedule tests at least 1 to 2 months in advance
to assure the availability of stack testing contractors. The commenter
also agreed with the EPA that it is impractical to schedule testing at
times of the year when maximum temperatures will occur because ambient
temperatures cannot be precisely predicted in advance. The commenter
stated that they appreciate that the EPA recognizes the variations in
operating conditions that facilities may routinely experience
consistent with the proper operation of such control devices within the
manufacturer's specifications. However, the commenter suggested that
the EPA clarify this 20-percent allowance applies to temperatures
expressed in units of degrees Fahrenheit because the application of a
20-percent margin to temperature expressed in other units of measure
would not result in the same temperature.
On the contrary, two other commenters opposed allowing facilities a
20-percent margin of compliance on the average inlet temperature of a
PM control device other than a thermal oxidizer.
One commenter disagreed with the EPA's claims that the change
addresses the high impact of ambient conditions on the inlet
temperature and removes some of the scheduling uncertainty while still
accounting for the temperature dependence of emissions. The commenter
contended that the difficulty industry faces is in trying to capture
the maximum gas inlet temperature at which they can achieve compliance,
which is the maximum point at which that facility can show it can
operate while being in compliance. The commenter contended that the 20-
percent extra allowance for temperature is a malfunction buffer and the
EPA is statutorily barred from creating a malfunction exemption, and
they cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(citing CAA sections 112 and 302(k)).
Additionally, the commenter contended that the EPA did not include
an analysis that explains why it chose to add the 20-percent margin for
temperature limits, the impact that this will have, and why this change
to its prior standards is justified by the best available science. The
commenter asserted that the EPA needs to also cite its authority for
the proposed change, demonstrate how its proposal stays within the
bounds of that authority, and explain and show its work, so that the
public can evaluate and comment on it. Similarly, another commenter
said the 20-percent extra allowance for temperature is unsupported by
any data.
A commenter stated that where condensable PM, including high
boiling point asphalt components, is present, control efficiency is
affected by the vapor pressure of the components, and emissions will
increase at higher temperatures. The commenter suggested that
facilities that are unable to maintain the operating limits established
during a successful performance test conducted in the winter should be
required to conduct an additional performance test in the summer to
establish a seasonal operating limit. Further, the commenter said that
there is no rationale to allow a 20-percent margin for facilities that
[[Page 14544]]
have conducted their performance tests in the summer. Additionally, the
commenter pointed out that it is unclear whether the risk assessment
included these potentially increased emissions (of condensable PM due
to higher control device operating temperatures) and called attention
to the statement in the preamble (84 FR 18952) that no air quality
impacts are anticipated. The commenter said this statement in the
preamble incorrectly ignores the increased emissions due to higher
control device operating temperatures that would be allowed in the
proposed amendments.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assessment that
the proposed 20-percent extra allowance on the inlet gas temperature
limit of the PM control device is a malfunction buffer. Malfunction is
defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as ``any 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
which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations
in an applicable standard to be exceeded.'' The potential temperature
exceedance being addressed by this provision is not a failure to
operate in a normal or usual manner, but a normal variation of inlet
temperature in accordance with natural temperature variation. The
temperature at the inlet to these PM control devices is highly
dependent on the ``sweep'' air from the process area, a non-temperature
controlled environment. The inlet temperature, thus, swings over the
course of a day and through the seasons based upon the ambient
temperature. Facilities are not equipped to modulate the inlet
temperature. The issue facilities face is not one of testing in the
winter and, thus, being out of compliance in the summer, as there is no
lower temperature limit being set and facilities are not testing in the
winter, but of trying to accurately predict the hottest day of the next
5 summer weeks in advance to be sure that the temperature at the inlet
is at its peak during the test event. An 85 degrees Fahrenheit day
instead of an anticipated 95 degrees Fahrenheit day is sufficient to
cause potential issues in the setting of maximum temperature
limitations, as facilities do not have a mechanism for controlling the
inlet temperature. The EPA has used operating margins in the setting of
control device operating parameter limits for certain other rules such
as 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB, NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants,
respectively, where the daily average differential pressure across an
absorber and the flow rate of the liquid to each absorber or the
secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator is 20 percent of the baseline average; 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL,
NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, where the
temperature of the inline kiln/raw mill during startup/shutdown may
exceed the temperature limit by 10 percent; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRR, NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production, where the flow rate of
the capture/collection system indicators is maintained at greater than
90 percent of the flow rate measured during the performance test.
The EPA anticipates no increases in emissions as a result of the
change in the mechanism of determining the maximum allowable inlet
temperature. As discussed above, facilities have no control over the
inlet temperature; the temperature of the sweep air to a large extent
defines the inlet temperature. Facilities will not be increasing the
inlet operating temperature as a result of this change but will be
better able to schedule their periodic performance test as a result.
Facilities will likely continue to aim to perform their performance
tests at the highest temperature possible in order to best insulate
themselves from potentially exceeding their maximum temperature limit
as a result of higher ambient temperatures. The inclusion of the
periodic performance test will also help ensure that emissions are
maintained below the emission limit through the recurring measurement
of actual emissions.
The EPA agrees that a clarification of which temperature scale the
temperature is to be determined is necessary because the application of
a 20-percent margin to temperature expressed in units other than
degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit would result in too large of an
operating limit window (e.g., although 305 Kelvin is equal to about 90
degrees Fahrenheit, 20 percent of 305 Kelvin is very different from 20
percent of 90 degrees Fahrenheit). Therefore, the EPA is specifying in
the final rule at item 12 of Table 3 that the temperature must be
measured in units of degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. We
acknowledge that the use of Celsius will result in a slightly more
conservative temperature range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit less when
compared to the corresponding Fahrenheit range), but want to ensure the
flexibility of either temperature scale for facilities.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that Table 3 to the proposed
rule does not specify a required frequency for the EPA Method 22
visible emissions test. The commenter suggested EPA Method 22 should be
conducted daily because it serves to ensure continued satisfactory
performance of the emissions capture system. The commenter said that
defects in the capture system and duct work leading to a control device
should not be allowed to persist for 5 years before initiating
corrective action.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the frequency
for EPA Method 22 evaluations is not specified in the rule. Table 3 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, presents the Requirements for
Performance Tests; the frequency of these tests, after the initial
Performance Test, is set in 40 CFR 63.8691(e). The EPA is clarifying
that the visible emissions and opacity tests are included in the
periodic performance tests by removing the phrase ``during the initial
compliance period described in 63.8686'' from the appropriate rows in
Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL (Initial and Continuous
Compliance With Emissions Limitations), dealing with opacity and
visible emissions measurements. The inclusion of the EPA Method 22
visible emissions measurement during the performance test documents
that, during the performance test, the emissions capture system was
operating correctly and that emissions directed to the control device
are maximized. The addition of a daily EPA Method 22 evaluation is not
necessary. The requirement to limit visible emissions from the capture
system is applicable at all times, and the continuing operation of the
emissions capture system outside of the performance test is governed by
the general duty to operate and maintain any affected source including
the air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices.
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to require
performance testing within 3 years of publication and every 5 years
thereafter, to ensure compliance. Another commenter said the
requirement to perform testing once every 5 years is redundant with
existing requirements. The commenter contended that facilities subject
to the current NESHAP are subject to title V permitting, and many title
V permits now require re-testing once every 5 years consistent with the
title V renewal cycle.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the requirement that the
performance tests must be conducted at least once every
[[Page 14545]]
5 years, as proposed; however, we are adding language to the final rule
text at 40 CFR 63.8691(e)(1) to clarify that facilities are allowed to
synchronize their periodic performance testing schedule with a
previously conducted emission test, such as a test associated with
title V permit renewal, provided the facility can demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the testing meets the requirements of
40 CFR 63.8686(b).
Comment: One commenter suggested that if the EPA will not
reconsider the regulation requiring periodic testing every 5 years,
then the EPA should propose an approach that allows testing to be
curtailed after a facility demonstrates repeated compliance in
successive testing events.
Response: The EPA is not revising the proposed rule to incorporate
a reduction in testing frequency greater than 5 years. The EPA has, in
some other rules, included a provision that allows for a reduction in
the frequency of testing from annual to a 3 or 5-year period after
multiple demonstrations of compliance. The 5-year interval for testing
in this rule between performance tests would require at least 15 years
to demonstrate a trend. Due to the timeframe of recurrent testing (once
every 5 years) being promulgated in this rule, the EPA concludes that
allowance for a reduced testing frequency is not warranted.
Comment: One commenter declared that the requirement for periodic
testing is overly broad and fails to acknowledge both the costs
incurred (direct and indirect) and whether additional testing would
result in any environmental benefit. The commenter said the proposed
rule would require performance testing of each control device used to
comply with NESHAP standards for PM, THC, opacity, or visible emissions
but argued that NESHAP regulations typically require testing only for
the control devices on larger sources, not all control devices. The
commenter recommended that for smaller control devices, opacity
controls (e.g., mist eliminators), and flares, it should be adequate to
operate and maintain each control device as recommended by the
manufacturer. The commenter pointed out that petroleum refineries are
not required to do any periodic testing for flares subject to the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC). The commenter
said that by focusing on only the largest emission sources, there is a
clear environmental benefit from the testing, much less disruption to
operations, and much less cost incurred by the operator. To the extent
the EPA requires some periodic testing, the commenter recommended that
the testing requirement exclude opacity and visible emission control
devices, the testing requirement exclude flares, and the periodic
testing should focus only on the largest emitting source, where risk is
determined to be higher or above some specified threshold.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the testing requirements as
proposed. The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
NESHAP regulations typically require testing only for larger emissions
sources. The periodic performance test on all sources (small and large)
provides a demonstration that the control devices associated with these
sources are continuing to operate as designed. The operation of mist
eliminators is not merely to control opacity, but also to control
emissions of the PM and organic compounds which cause the opacity. The
visible emissions tests of the emissions capture system are integral to
determining if the overall capture and control system are operating as
designed. The commenter indicates that the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) does not have periodic testing for flares;
however, the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP includes robust continuous
monitoring requirements associated with flares that are not present in
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLLLL).
Comment: One commenter argued that the net cost benefit that the
EPA presents in its justification for added performance testing
requirements is significantly overstated and may become a net burden.
The commenter suggested the EPA develop more accurate estimates of
testing costs to provide a more realistic estimate of the cost impact
for the subject facilities. The commenter stated the EPA's cost
estimate for performance testing assumes that each source to be tested
has an existing emissions point that can actually be sampled, but this
may not always be the case, and the costs of adding a stack, sampling
ports, and/or sample platforms and ladders should be included.
Additionally, the commenter said the EPA's performance test cost
estimates for thermal oxidizers treating vent gas from blowing stills
are too low. The commenter argued that the EPA underestimated the
number of thermal oxidizer/blowing still tests required, and a test on
a thermal oxidizer treating vent gas from one or more blowing stills
typically requires testing over 3 separate workdays because only one
test run can be completed in a typical workday. The commenter stated
that blowing stills operate using a batch process that takes up to 6
hours, and to assure the test measurements are representative of the
batch cycle, testing is performed for the duration of a batch. The
commenter said the cost for testing one thermal oxidizer associated
with one or more blowing stills, with each test run covering an entire
batch cycle of up to 6 hours, is $44,000. Using this value, the
commenter estimated total testing costs to be $172,600 from an asphalt
roofing facility that has five reactors controlled by two different
thermal oxidizers which discharge to separate stacks. The commenter
applied the increased blowing still/thermal oxidizer costs to the
number of tests required for the four facilities that do not already
have 5-year testing requirements under their respective state title V
programs, and showed that the nationwide cost impact is $309,100 rather
than the EPA's estimate of $138,800. The commenter said their cost
estimate was more than double the estimate the EPA provided in Appendix
A of the Cost Impacts memorandum. The commenter said their cost
estimate is greater than the EPA's estimated cost savings of $221,100
from proposed changes in monitoring requirements, resulting in a net
cost burden rather than net cost benefit.
Response: The EPA agrees that further review of the costs is
warranted and based on this review, we have revised our proposed cost
impacts analysis. All sources required to be tested have existing
initial performance testing requirements and so have already been
tested at least once. Therefore, the additional costs for adding a
stack, sampling ports, and/or sample platforms and ladders have not
been added to the burden of this rule because we have assumed these
items already exist (due to the existing initial performance testing
requirements). However, the EPA agrees that, based on the longer run
time duration for the blowing stills, the initial cost estimates for
these tests was low. Therefore, we revised our cost impacts analysis to
reflect the commenter's recommended higher blowing still/thermal
oxidizer testing costs (i.e., $44,000). We also revised the number of
thermal oxidizer/blowing still tests required for one facility. Our
revised analysis (even after considering the information provided by
this commenter) still results in a net cost savings rather than a net
cost burden as suggested by the commenter. We estimate that the final
amendments will result in a nationwide net cost savings of $132,000
(2017$) over the 5-year period following promulgation of the
amendments. For further information on
[[Page 14546]]
the costs and cost savings associated with the final amendments, see
the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Final and Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which are available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions
for the other amendments for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
for this subpart including the proposed technical and editorial
corrections. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR
18939), and in sections III.D and IV.D.3 of this preamble, we are
finalizing these amendments.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are four asphalt processing facilities, plus another four
asphalt processing facilities collocated with asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, currently operating as major sources of HAP.
As such, eight facilities are subject to the final amendments. A
complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the MACT
standards is available in Appendix A of the memorandum titled Clean Air
Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Final, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0662.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
Because we are not establishing new numerical emission limits and
are not requiring additional controls, no air quality impacts are
expected as a result of the final amendments to the rule. Requiring
periodic performance testing has the potential to reduce excess
emissions from sources using poorly performing add-on controls, even
though facilities are required to be in compliance at all times.
The final amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of the
affected facilities in either source category and would, therefore,
have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We revised our proposed cost impacts analysis based on a comment
received during the public comment period (see section IV.D.3 of this
preamble). We estimate that the final amendments will result in a
nationwide net present value of net cost savings of $132,000 (2017$)
over the 5-year period following promulgation of amendments (2019-
2023). The equivalent annualized value of these net cost savings is
$32,000 per year when costs are discounted at a 7- percent discount
rate. Because periodic performance testing would be required every 5
years, we estimated and summarized the cost savings over a 5-year
period. The costs associated with the final amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and periodic performance
testing. The requirement for periodic testing of once every 5 years
results in an estimated increase in the present value of costs of about
$252,000 over the 5-year period in addition to an estimated present
value of costs of about $4,000 for reviewing the final amendments.
However, the changes to the monitoring requirements for PM control
devices result in an estimated present value of cost savings of about
$388,000 over the 5-year period. Therefore, overall, we estimate the
net present value of net cost savings of about $132,000 for the 5-year
period. The final amendments to the monitoring requirements are
projected to alleviate some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities to have to retest the PM control device for the sole purpose
of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits
and to allow facilities to extend filter replacement by 3 months. For
further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the
final amendments, see the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Final and
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, which are available in the docket for
this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated
with the final requirements over the 5-year period following
promulgation of these amendments. This cost savings is not expected to
have adverse economic impacts. For further information on the economic
impacts associated with the final requirements, see the memorandum,
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in the docket for
this action.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA is not finalizing changes to emissions limits, and we
estimate the final changes (i.e., changes to SSM, monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting) are not economically significant. Because
these final amendments are not considered economically significant, as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions
were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing
emissions.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
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 risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories across
different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for six of the
11 demographic groups, African American, Native American, other and
multiracial, ages 0-17, ages 18-64, and below the poverty level, the
percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the
source categories is greater than the corresponding national percentage
for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of
those exposed to emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater
than 1.
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 Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source
[[Page 14547]]
Categories Operations, available in the docket for this action.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
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 concludes, based on the results of the risk assessment,
that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are summarized in section IV.A of this
preamble and are further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Source Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, available in the docket for this action.
VI. 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 Orders 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. See document titled Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in the docket for this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Information collection activities in this rule have been submitted
for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2598.02. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
The EPA is not revising the numerical emission limitation
requirements for this subpart. The EPA is finalizing a requirement to
conduct control device performance testing no less frequently than once
every 5 years. The EPA has also revised the SSM provisions of the rule
and is requiring the use of electronic data reporting for future
performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports. This information would be
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of asphalt
processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL).
Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $95,900 (per year), which includes $88,400
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
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. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document,
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, available in the docket for this
action.
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. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the eight asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities that have been identified as being
affected by this final action are owned or operated by tribal
governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
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 concludes, based on the results of the risk assessment,
that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in section IV.A of this
preamble.
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 rulemaking involves technical standards. As discussed in the
preamble of the proposal, the EPA conducted searches for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP through the
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute. We also contacted voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and
25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the
title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling
and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's
[[Page 14548]]
reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method.
The EPA incorporates by reference ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere,'' with conditions as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 9. We note that this version of the method (i.e., ASTM D7520-16)
is a newer version than what we proposed (i.e., ASTM D7520-2013). The
same proposed conditions apply to this newer version; therefore, we are
finalizing these conditions, as proposed. The method provides
procedures for determining the opacity of a plume, using digital
imagery and associated hardware and software. During the DCOT
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). The owner or operator
must also have standard operating procedures in place, including daily
or other frequency quality checks, to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-
16. The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEG formatted images used
for opacity and certification determination. The owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology
users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300
certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not
exceed 15-percent opacity of any one reading, and the average error
must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity. This approval does not provide or
imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or
software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or
training of the DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with
ASTM D7520-16 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and
DCOT vendor. This method is available at ASTM International, 1850 M
Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/.
The EPA decided not to include 11 other VCS; these methods are
impractical as alternatives because of the lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and
policy considerations. The search and review results have been
documented and are in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA concludes, based on the results of an analysis of
demographic factors, 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).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
Operations, available in the docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 30, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 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 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(102) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(102) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR approved for Sec. 63.1625(b) and table 3 to subpart LLLLL.
* * * * *
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
0
3. Section 63.8681 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
and reserving paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing
facility, as defined in Sec. 63.8698, that is a major source as
defined in Sec. 63.2, or is located at, or is part of a major source
as defined in Sec. 63.2.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.8683 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8683 When must I comply with this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source as
defined in Sec. 63.2, then the following requirements apply:
* * * * *
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8692
according to the schedules in Sec. Sec. 63.8692 and 63.9(a) through
(f) and (h). Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
0
5. Section 63.8684 is amended by revising the section heading to read
as follows:
[[Page 14549]]
Sec. 63.8684 What emission limitations and operating limits must I
meet?
0
6. Section 63.8685 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Before September 9, 2020, you must be in compliance with the
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
On and after September 9, 2020, you must be in compliance with the
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at
all times, except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source
(or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions
to which this subpart applies.
(b) Before September 9, 2020, you must always operate and maintain
your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and
after September 9, 2020, at all times, you 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 you 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 that 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 affected
source.
(c) Before September 9, 2020, you must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). On and after September 9, 2020, a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.8686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.8686 By what date must I conduct initial performance tests or
other initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct initial
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that
is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683 and according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) * * *
(3) The control device and process parameter values established
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with this subpart; and
(4) The previously-conducted emission test was completed within the
last 60 months.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.8687 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8687 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) Each performance test must be conducted under normal operating
conditions and under the conditions specified in Table 3 to this
subpart. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes
of conducting a performance test. 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
explain why the 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.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.8688 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.8688 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(f) As an option to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) that
meets the applicable requirements in Sec. 63.8 according to Table 7 to
this subpart and the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
* * * * *
(h) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
and (c)(7) and (8);
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 63.8693 and 63.8694 and the general requirements of
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.8689 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8687 and
Table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) For control devices used to comply with the particulate matter
standards in Table 1 to this subpart, you may establish any of the
operating limits for pressure drop range (i.e., a minimum and a maximum
pressure drop) across the control device using manufacturers'
specifications in lieu of complying with paragraph (b) of this section.
0
11. Section 63.8690 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
* * * * *
(b) Before September 9, 2020, except for monitor malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect
data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source
is operating including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
when the affected source is operating. On and after September 9, 2020,
you must monitor and collect data at all times in accordance with Sec.
63.8685(b), except during periods of nonoperation of the affected
source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the
emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.8691 is amended by:
[[Page 14550]]
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.8691 How do I conduct periodic performance tests and
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and
operating limits?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the
procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and you must conduct
performance tests as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) Before September 9, 2020, you must report each instance in
which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart
that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission
limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8693. On and after September
9, 2020, you must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to you, except
during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific
portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this
subpart applies.
* * * * *
(d) Before September 9, 2020, consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e)
and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec. 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e). On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (d) no longer applies.
(e) For each control device used to comply with the PM, THC,
opacity, or visible emission standards of this subpart, you must
conduct periodic performance tests using the applicable procedures
specified in Sec. 63.8687 and Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate
compliance with Sec. 63.8684(a), and to confirm or reestablish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.8684(b). You must conduct
periodic performance tests according to the schedule specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for
each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed
affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after
November 21, 2001 and on or before March 12, 2020, you must conduct the
first periodic performance test on or before March 13, 2023. As an
alternative to the first periodic performance test, you may use the
results of a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart, such as tests
for renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or
40 CFR part 71, if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction
that it meets the requirements of Sec. 63.8686(b)(1) through (4). The
subsequent periodic performance tests must be conducted no later than
60 months thereafter following the previous performance test.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for
each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction
or reconstruction after March 12, 2020, you must conduct the first
periodic performance test no later than 60 months following the initial
performance test required by Sec. 63.8689. If you used the alternative
compliance option specified in Sec. 63.8686(b) to comply with the
initial performance test, then you must conduct the first periodic
performance test no later than 60 months following the date you
demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of Sec.
63.8686(b) had been met.
(3) If an affected source is not operating on the dates the
periodic performance test is required to be conducted as specified in
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are not required to
restart the affected source for the sole purpose of complying with
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. Instead, upon restart of the
affected source, you must conduct the first periodic performance test
within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions but no later
than 180 days from startup. You must conduct subsequent periodic
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous performance test.
0
13. Section 63.8692 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8692 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.6(h)(4)
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified in these sections, except as
provided in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart,
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2). On and after September 9, 2020, you
must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to
EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI),
which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI),
then submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI,
to EPA. 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 EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph
(e). You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this
paragraph (e) provided you meet the requirements outlined in Sec.
63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable.
(f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test
to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards
and operating limits of this subpart as specified in Sec. 63.8686(b),
you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test
results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under
paragraph (e) of this section.
0
14. Section 63.8693 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), (d) introductory text, (d)(1)
through (4), and (d)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 14551]]
Sec. 63.8693 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) On and after September 9, 2020, you must submit all compliance
reports to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's 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 date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. 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 CBI, submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The
report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI
website or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed 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 EPA via
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (b)(6). You may assert
a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely
comply with the reporting requirement in this paragraph (b)(6) provided
you meet the requirements outlined in Sec. 63.8693(h) or (i), as
applicable.
(c) * * *
(4) Before September 9, 2020, if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent
with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after September 9, 2020, this paragraph
(c)(4) no longer applies.
(5) For each reporting period, you must include in the compliance
report the total number of deviations that occurred during the
reporting period. If there are no deviations from any emission
limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and
visible emission limit) in Sec. 63.8684 that apply to you, then you
must include a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) in Sec.
63.8684, you must include in the compliance report the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section, and the information in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (13) of this section.
(1) The start date, start time, and duration of each malfunction.
(2) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the start date,
start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative;
the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being
inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(3) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the start date, start time,
and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, including
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) Before September 9, 2020, the start date, start time, and
duration of the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
On and after September 9, 2020, the start date, start time, and
duration of the deviation including a description of the deviation and
the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.8685(b). You must also include:
(i) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred;
(ii) The cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if
applicable); and
(iii) Any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to
its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(6) Before September 9, 2020, a breakdown of the total duration of
the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after September 9, 2020,
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 other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(13) On and after September 9, 2020, for each deviation from an
emission limitation in Sec. 63.8684, you must include an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limitation in Sec. 63.8684, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(f) On and after September 9, 2020, within 60 days after the date
of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on 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 to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT 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 EPA via
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) On and after September 9, 2020, within 60 days after the date
of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2) as specified in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must submit the results of the
performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
[[Page 14552]]
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT 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 EPA via
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this
section. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(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 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.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure
to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this section. To
assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (i)(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
15. Section 63.8694 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8694 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Before September 9, 2020, the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii)
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (a)(2) no longer applies.
* * * * *
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via 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 EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
16. Section 63.8697 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.8697 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688,
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.8698 is amended by revising definitions of ``Adhesive
applicator,'' ``Deviation,'' and ``Sealant applicator'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.8698 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Adhesive applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of
adhesive) to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for
[[Page 14553]]
producing laminated or dimensional roofing shingles.
* * * * *
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 emission 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) Before September 9, 2020, fails to meet any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this
subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether
or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (3) no longer applies.
* * * * *
Sealant applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of
sealant) to apply a sealant strip to a roofing product. The sealant
strip is used to seal overlapping pieces of roofing product after they
have been applied.
* * * * *
0
18. Table 1 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising row 1
and footnote b to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For-- emission limitation--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
loading rack, and Group 1 asphalt mass emissions by 95 percent,
storage tank at existing, new, and or to a concentration of 20
reconstructed asphalt processing ppmv, on a dry basis corrected
facilities; and each Group 1 asphalt to 3 percent oxygen;
storage tank at existing, new, and b. Route the emissions to a
reconstructed asphalt roofing combustion device achieving a
manufacturing lines; and each coating combustion efficiency of 99.5
mixer, saturator (including wet percent;
looper), coater, sealant applicator, c. Route the emissions to a
and adhesive applicator at new and combustion device that does
reconstructed asphalt roofing not use auxiliary fuel
manufacturing lines. achieving a total hydrocarbon
(THC) destruction efficiency
of 95.8 percent;
d. Route the emissions to a
boiler or process heater with
a design heat input capacity
of 44 megawatts (MW) or
greater;
e. Introduce the emissions into
the flame zone of a boiler or
process heater; or
f. Route emissions to a flare
meeting the requirements of
Sec. 63.11(b).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
b The opacity limit can be exceeded for one consecutive 15-minute period
in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being
cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be
bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to
the saturator control device, the combined emissions from the
saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit
(specified in 3.a of Table 1 to this subpart) during this 15-minute
period. At any other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2
asphalt storage tanks.
0
19. Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 3
and 4 and footnotes a and c to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For-- You must a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to comply with a. Maintain the 3-hour average
the particulate matter standards.. b inlet gas temperature at or
below the operating limit
established during the
performance test; and
b. Maintain the 3-hour average
b pressure drop across the
device c within the operating
range limits (i.e., at or
above a minimum pressure drop
and at or below a maximum
pressure drop) established
during the performance test,
or as an alternative,
established according to the
manufacturer's specifications
as specified in Sec.
63.8689(d).
4. Other control devices that are Maintain the approved
neither a combustion device nor a monitoring parameters within
control device used to comply with the the operating limits
particulate matter emission standards. established during the
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart are
applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters
to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS,
you must maintain emissions below the value established during the
initial performance test.
b A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
hour averaging period for this parameter.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
the performance test.
0
20. Table 3 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 1,
7, and 11 through 13 and footnotes a and c and adding footnotes d
through f to read as follows:
[[Page 14554]]
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For-- You must-- Using-- requirements--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total a. Select sampling i. EPA test method 1 A. For demonstrating
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and port's location and or 1A in appendix A compliance with the total
carbon dioxide emission tests. the number of to part 60 of this hydrocarbon percent
traverse points. chapter. reduction standard, the
sampling sites must be
located at the inlet and
outlet of the control
device prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
B. For demonstrating
compliance with the
particulate matter mass
emission rate, THC
destruction efficiency,
THC outlet concentration,
or combustion efficiency
standards, the sampling
sites must be located at
the outlet of the control
device prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
* * * * * * *
7. All opacity tests............... Conduct opacity EPA test method 9 in Conduct opacity
observations. appendix A to part 60 observations for at least
of this chapter, or 3 hours and obtain 30, 6-
ASTM D7520-16 d f. minute averages.
* * * * * * *
11. Each combustion device......... Establish a site- Data from the CPMS and You must collect combustion
specific combustion the applicable zone temperature data
zone temperature performance test every 15 minutes during
operating limit. method(s). the entire period of the 3-
hour performance test, and
determine the average
combustion zone
temperature over the 3-
hour performance test by
computing the average of
all of the 15-minute
readings.
12. Each control device used to Establish a site- Data from the CPMS and You must collect the inlet
comply with the particulate matter specific inlet gas the applicable gas temperature and
emission standards. temperature operating performance test pressure drop b data every
limit; and if not method(s). 15 minutes during the
complying with Sec. entire period of the 3-
63.8689(d), also hour performance test, and
establish site- determine the average
specific limits for inlet gas temperature and
the pressure drop pressure drop c over the 3-
range (i.e., a hour performance test by
minimum and a maximum computing the average of
pressure drop) across all of the 15-minute
the device e. readings. The inlet gas
temperature operating
limit is set at +20
percent of the test run
average inlet gas
temperature measured in
units of degrees Celsius
or degrees Fahrenheit. The
maximum (or minimum)
pressure drop is set as
the maximum (or minimum)
average pressure drop of
the performance test runs
which demonstrated
compliance with the
applicable emission limit.
13. Each control device that is Establish site- Process data and data You must collect monitoring
neither a combustion device nor a specific monitoring from the CPMS and the parameter data every 15
control device used to comply with parameters. applicable minutes during the entire
the particulate matter emission performance test period of the 3-hour
standards. method(s). performance test, and
determine the average
monitoring parameter
values over the 3-hour
performance test by
computing the average of
all of the 15-minute
readings.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For initial performance tests, as specified in Sec. 63.8686(b), you may request that data from a previously-
conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits
of this subpart.
b Performance tests are not required if: (1) The emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a
design heat input capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a
boiler or process heater.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP
to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to
the ESP.
d If you use ASTM D7520-16 in lieu of EPA test method 9, then you must comply with the conditions specified in
this footnote. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section
9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color
and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing
specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16. You must follow the record keeping procedures
outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw
unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300
certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the
certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and
this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
e You may conduct two separate performance tests to establish the operating limits for pressure drop range
(i.e., one performance test to establish a minimum pressure drop operating limit and one performance test to
establish a maximum pressure drop operating limit); however, you may choose to establish either, or both, the
minimum and maximum pressure drop operating limits using the requirements of Sec. 63.8689(d) in lieu of the
requirements specified in this Table.
f Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14.
0
21. Table 4 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising the
table heading, the fourth column heading, and rows 4 and 5 to read as
follows:
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Initial and Continuous Compliance
With Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You have
For-- emission limitation-- demonstrated
compliance if--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
4. Each saturator (including a. Limit visible The visible
wet looper) and coater at emissions from the emissions, measured
an existing, new, or emissions capture using EPA test
reconstructed asphalt system to 20 method 22 in
roofing manufacturing line. percent of any appendix A to part
period of 60 of this chapter,
consecutive valid for any period of
observations consecutive valid
totaling 60 minutes. observations
totaling 60 minutes
do not exceed 20
percent.
b. Limit opacity The opacity,
emissions to 20 measured using EPA
percent. test method 9 in
appendix A to part
60 of this chapter,
for each of the
first 30 6-minute
averages does not
exceed 20 percent.
[[Page 14555]]
5. Each Group 2 asphalt Limit exhaust gases The opacity,
storage tank at existing, to 0 percent measured using EPA
new, and reconstructed opacity. test method 9 in
asphalt processing appendix A to part
facilities and asphalt 60 of this chapter,
roofing manufacturing lines. for each of the
first 30 6-minute
averages does not
exceed 0 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
22. Table 5 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 3
and 4 and footnotes a and d to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Operating Limits a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For the following continuous
For-- operating limit-- compliance by--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to a. Maintain the 3- i. Passing the
comply with the particulate hour c average emissions through
matter emission standards. inlet gas the control device;
temperature at or and
below the operating ii. Collecting the
limit established inlet gas
during the temperature and
performance test; pressure drop d
and. data according to
Sec. 63.8688(b)
and (c); and
b. Maintain the 3- iii. Reducing inlet
hour c average gas temperature and
pressure drop pressure drop d
across device d data to 3-hour c
within the averages according
operating range to calculations in
limits that were Table 3 to this
established subpart; and
pursuant to Sec. iv. Maintaining the
63.8689(b) and/or 3-hour c average
(d). inlet gas
temperature within
the level
established during
the performance
test; and
v. Maintaining the 3-
hour c average
pressure drop
across device d
within the level
established
pursuant to Sec.
63.8689(b) and/or
(d).
4. Other control devices a. Maintain the i. Passing the
that are neither a monitoring emissions through
combustion device nor a parameters within the devices;
control device used to the operating ii. Collecting the
comply with the particulate limits established monitoring
matter emission standards. during the parameter data
performance test. according to Sec.
63.8688(d); and
iii. Reducing the
monitoring
parameter data to 3-
hour c averages
according to
calculations in
Table 3 to this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the
monitoring
parameters within
the level
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and the
requirements specified in Table 5 to this subpart are applicable if
you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate
continuous compliance. If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits, you are not required to record
control device operating parameters. However, you must maintain
emissions below the value established during the initial performance
test. Data from the CEMS and COMS must be reduced as specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.8690 and 63.8(g)(1) through (4).
* * * * * * *
c A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
hour averaging period for this parameter.
d As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
the performance test.
0
23. Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 4,
5, and 6 and adding row 7 to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit-- contain-- report--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
4. Notification of The information in According to the
compliance status. Sec. 63.9(h)(2) requirements in
through (5), as Sec. Sec.
applicable. 63.8692(e) and
63.9(h)(2) through
(5), as applicable.
[[Page 14556]]
5. A compliance report...... a. A statement that Semiannually
there were no according to the
deviations from the requirements in
emission Sec. 63.8693(b).
limitations during
the reporting
period, if there
are no deviations
from any emission
limitations
(emission limit,
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
visible emission
limit) that apply
to you.
b. If there were no Semiannually
periods during according to the
which the CPMS, requirements in
CEMS, or COMS was Sec. 63.8693(b).
out-of-control as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), a
statement that
there were no
periods during
which the CPMS,
CEMS, or COMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period.
c. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to the
emission limitation requirements in
(emission limit, Sec. 63.8693(b).
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
visible emission
limit), the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8693(c) and
(d).
d. Before September Semiannually
9, 2020, if you had according to the
a startup, shutdown requirements in
or malfunction Sec. 63.8693(b).
during the
reporting period
and you took
actions consistent
with your startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan,
the compliance
report must include
the information in
Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). On
and after September
9, 2020, this
paragraph no longer
applies.
6. An immediate startup, The information in By fax or telephone
shutdown, and malfunction Sec. within 2 working
report if you have a 63.10(d)(5)(ii). days after starting
startup, shutdown, or actions
malfunction during the inconsistent with
reporting period before the plan followed
September 9, 2020, and by a letter within
actions taken were not 7 working days
consistent with your after the end of
startup, shutdown, and the event unless
malfunction plan. On and you have made
after September 9, 2020, alternative
this paragraph no longer arrangements with
applies. the permitting
authority.
7. Performance test report.. The information in Within 60 days after
Sec. 63.7. completion of the
performance test
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.8693(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
24. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for Sec. 63.6(e)(1) and adding entries in
numerical order for Sec. Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), and
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
0
b. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec. 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1),
63.6(h)(1), and 63.7(e)(1);
0
c. Adding an entry in numerical order for Sec. 63.7(e)(4);
0
d. Removing the entry for Sec. 63.8(c)(1);
0
e. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii),
63.8(c)(1)(iii), and 63.8(d);
0
f. Removing the entry for Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v);
0
g. Adding entries in numerical order for Sec. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i),
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v);
and
0
h. Revising the entry for Sec. 63.10(d)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)................. Operation & Maintenance Operate to minimize Yes before September 9,
emissions at all times. 2020. No on and after
September 9, 2020. See
Sec. 63.8685(b) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)................ Operation & Maintenance Correct malfunctions as Yes before September 9,
soon as practicable. 2020. No on and after
September 9, 2020.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Operation & Maintenance Operation and Yes.
maintenance
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operation and
maintenance
requirements were met.
[[Page 14557]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................... Startup, Shutdown, and 1. Requirement for SSM Yes before September 9,
Malfunction (SSM) Plan and startup, shutdown, 2020. No on and after
(SSMP). malfunction plan. September 9, 2020.
2. Content of SSMP.....
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................... Compliance Except You must comply with Yes before September 9,
During SSM. emission standards at 2020. No on and after
all times except September 9, 2020.
during SSM.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................... Compliance with Opacity/ You must comply with Yes before September 9,
VE Standards. opacity/VE emission 2020. No on and after
limitations at all September 9, 2020.
times except during
SSM.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Conditions for 1. Performance tests Yes before September 9,
Conducting Performance must be conducted 2020. No on and after
Tests. under representative September 9, 2020. See
conditions. Cannot Sec. 63.8687.
conduct performance
tests during SSM.
2. Not a violation to
exceed standard during
SSM.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).................... Conduct of performance Administrator's Yes.
tests. authority to require
testing under section
114 of the Act.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)................. Routine and predictable 1. Keep parts for Yes before September 9,
CMS malfunction. routine repairs 2020. No on and after
readily available. September 9, 2020.
2. Reporting
requirements for CMS
malfunction when
action is described in
SSM plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................ CMS malfunction not in Keep the necessary Yes.
SSP plan. parts for routine
repairs if CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............... Compliance with Develop a written Yes before September 9,
Operation and startup, shutdown, and 2020. No on and after
Maintenance malfunction plan for September 9, 2020.
Requirements. CMS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(d)....................... CMS Quality Control.... 1. Requirements for CMS Yes.
quality control,
including calibration,
etc.
2. Must keep quality
control plan on record
for the life of the
affected source.
3. Keep old versions
for 5 years after
revisions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)................ Records related to Occurrence of each of Yes before September 9,
Startup and Shutdown. operation (process 2020. No on and after
equipment). September 9, 2020.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... Recordkeeping Relevant Occurrence of each Yes before September 9,
to Malfunction Periods malfunction of air 2020. No on and after
and CMS. pollution equipment. September 9, 2020.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Recordkeeping Relevant Maintenance on air Yes.
to Maintenance of Air pollution control
Pollution Control and equipment.
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)............... Recordkeeping Relevant Actions during startup, Yes before September 9,
to Startup, Shutdown, shutdown, and 2020. No on and after
and Malfunction malfunction. September 9, 2020.
Periods and CMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v)................ Recordkeeping Relevant Actions during startup, Yes before September 9,
to Startup, Shutdown, shutdown, and 2020. No on and after
and Malfunction malfunction. September 9, 2020.
Periods and CMS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission Yes before September 9,
Malfunction Reports. 2020. No on and after
September 9, 2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14558]]
[FR Doc. 2020-02369 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
