[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14248-14283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05463]
[[Page 14247]]
Vol. 80
Wednesday,
No. 52
March 18, 2015
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 14248]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360; FRL-9923-26-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR47
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (OSWRO)
source category regulated under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to correct and clarify
regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM); add requirements for reporting of
performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); revise
the routine maintenance provisions; clarify provisions pertaining to
open-ended valves and lines (OELs); add monitoring requirements for
pressure relief devices (PRDs); clarify provisions for some performance
test methods and procedures; and make several minor clarifications and
corrections. The revisions to the final rule increase the level of
emissions control and environmental protection provided by the OSWRO
NESHAP.
DATES: This final action is effective on March 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) 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 http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 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 Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-0246;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C504-06), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-2076; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Marcia Mia, EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; U.S. EPA, WJC West Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7042; 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:
ADAF--age-dependent adjustment factors
BDT--best demonstrated technology
CAA--Clean Air Act
CBI--confidential business information
CDX--Central Data Exchange
CEDRI--Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CRA--Congressional Review Act
CWA--Clean Water Act
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA--Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
ERT--Electronic Reporting Tool
FR--Federal Register
HAP--hazardous air pollutants
HON--Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ--hazard quotient
ICR--information collection request
IPT--integrated project team
kPa--kilopascals
LDAR--leak detection and repair
MACT--maximum achievable control technology
MIR--maximum individual risk
MON--Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NATA--National Air Toxics Assessment
NEIC--National Enforcement Investigations Center
NESHAP--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS--Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA--Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEL--open-ended valve or line
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSWRO--off-site waste and recovery operations
PB-HAP--hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM--polycyclic organic matter
ppm--parts per million
ppmv--parts per million by volume
ppmw--parts per million by weight
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD--pressure relief device
psi--pounds per square inch
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RQ--reportable quantity
RTR--residual risk and technology review
SBA--Small Business Administration
SCAQMD--South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOCMI--synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
SSM--startup, shutdown and malfunction
TOSHI--target organ-specific hazard index
tpy--tons per year
TSDF--hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities
TTN--Technology Transfer Network
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS--voluntary consensus standards
VOC--volatile organic compound
VOHAP--volatile organic hazardous air pollutant
XML--extensible markup language
Background Information. On July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37850), the EPA
proposed revisions to the OSWRO NESHAP based on our RTR, and we also
proposed to amend provisions related to emissions during periods of
SSM, to add requirements for electronic reporting of performance
testing and monitoring requirements for PRDs, to revise routine
maintenance provisions, to clarify provisions for OELs and for some
performance test methods and procedures and to make several minor
clarifications and corrections. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize key comments we
timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses
in this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the proposal not
presented in the preamble
[[Page 14249]]
and the EPA's responses to those comments are available in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360. The background information also includes
discussion and technical analyses of other issues addressed in this
final rule. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is 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 is the OSWRO source category and how does the NESHAP
promulgated on July 1, 1996, regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
C. What changes have been made to the standards since
promulgation of the NESHAP for the OSWRO source category?
D. What changes did we propose for the OSWRO source category in
our July 2, 2014, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the OSWRO source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the OSWRO source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions
to the OSWRO NESHAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the OSWRO source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO Source Category
B. Technology Review for the OSWRO Source Category
C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions for the OSWRO
Source Category
D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
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 Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. 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 Category Affected By This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Businesses or government agencies
Operations. that operate any of the following:
Hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilities (TSDF);
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) exempt hazardous
wastewater treatment facilities;
nonhazardous wastewater treatment
facilities other than publicly-
owned treatment works; used solvent
recovery plants; RCRA exempt
hazardous waste recycling
operations; used oil re-refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides 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 be available on the Internet through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and
technology exchange in various areas or air pollution control.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this final action at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/offwaste/oswropg.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA
will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at
this same Web site.
Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites 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
by May 18, 2015. 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 ``[o]nly 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, ``[i]f the
[[Page 14250]]
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 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, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 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 hazardous air pollutants (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 any combination of HAP at a
rate of 25 tpy or more. 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 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 79 FR 37850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit 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 is the OSWRO source category and how does the NESHAP
promulgated on July 1, 1996, regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
The EPA promulgated the OSWRO NESHAP on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34139).
The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. The OSWRO
industry consists of facilities that conduct operations to manage,
convey or handle wastes or recoverable materials that are received from
other facilities. The source category covered by the OSWRO NESHAP
currently includes approximately 56 facilities. However, based on
available permit information, seven facilities are known to be exempt
from most of the rule requirements due to the low HAP content of the
off-site waste they receive or because they comply instead with 40 CFR
part 61, subpart FF, as allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP, and they are not
expected to be affected by the final rule amendments.
In general, the rule applies to waste management units and recovery
operations that are located at major sources of HAP emissions, are used
to manage, convey or handle used oil, used solvent or waste received
from other facilities, and contain at least one of 97 organic HAP
specified in the rule.\2\ The HAP emission sources at facilities
subject to the OSWRO NESHAP are tanks, containers, surface
impoundments, oil-water separators, organic-water separators, process
vents and transfer systems used to manage offsite material and
equipment leaks. The MACT standards regulate these emissions sources
through emission limits, equipment standards and work practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The OSWRO MACT rule defines ``waste,'' ``used oil'' and
``used solvent'' in 40 CFR 63.681 Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What changes have been made to the standards since promulgation of
the NESHAP for the OSWRO source category?
Rule changes have been made to the OSWRO NESHAP since the
promulgation of the NESHAP on July 1, 1996, in several separate
actions. On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38950), the EPA issued a direct final
rule that amended specific provisions in the rule to resolve issues and
questions raised after promulgation of the final rule. In this action,
the EPA also amended other rule language to correct technical
omissions, to make requirements consistent with other related air
rules, and to correct typographical, printing and grammatical errors.
On January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1263), the EPA published technical
corrections
[[Page 14251]]
and minor technical amendments for the OSWRO NESHAP. In addition, the
EPA published proposed and final rules on January 16, 2002 (67 FR
2286), and June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37334), respectively, to clarify which
parts of several existing NESHAP, including the OSWRO NESHAP, can be
delegated to state, local and tribal agencies. The EPA also published
proposed and final rules on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43992), and April 20,
2006 (71 FR 20446), respectively, to revise certain aspects of SSM
requirements in several existing NESHAP, including the OSWRO NESHAP.
D. What changes did we propose for the OSWRO source category in our
July 2, 2014, proposal?
On July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37850), the EPA published proposed
amendments to the OSWRO NESHAP based on the RTR analyses and also
proposed other revisions. The proposed revisions include the following:
Revisions to the tank requirements to require increased
control of emissions for tanks in a specific size range that also
contain material above a specified vapor pressure;
Revisions to the equipment leak requirements to remove the
option to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part
61, subpart V, and require compliance with only 40 CFR part 63, subpart
H;
Revisions to requirements related to emissions during
periods of SSM;
The addition of requirements for reporting of performance
testing through the ERT;
Revisions to the routine maintenance provisions to limit
the applicability of the provisions to tanks;
Clarifications to the ``sealed'' requirement of the
provisions for OELs;
Addition of monitoring requirements for PRDs;
Clarification of provisions for some performance test
methods and procedures; and
Several minor clarifications and corrections.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the OSWRO source category, and amends
the OSWRO NESHAP, as proposed, based on those determinations. This
action also finalizes the proposed changes to the NESHAP described in
section II.D. of this preamble. We are also finalizing minor changes to
the NESHAP in consideration of comments received during the public
comment period for the proposed rulemaking, as described in section
IV.D.2 of this preamble. In the following subsections, we introduce and
summarize the final amendments to the OSWRO NESHAP.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
OSWRO source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we are revising the tank and
equipment leak requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP. Specifically, as we
proposed, we are finalizing our determination that risks from the OSWRO
source category are acceptable, considering all of the health
information and factors evaluated and also considering risk estimation
uncertainty; we are finalizing revisions to the tank requirements to
require increased control of emissions for tanks in a specific size
range that also contain material above a specified vapor pressure; and
we are finalizing revisions to the equipment leak requirements to
remove the option to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40
CFR part 61, subpart V, and require compliance with only 40 CFR part
63, subpart H. We evaluated the costs, emissions reductions, energy
implications and cost effectiveness of these revised standards and
determined that these measures are cost effective and technically
feasible and will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent adverse environmental effects from exposure to
emissions from the OSWRO source category.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the OSWRO source category?
We determined that there are developments in practices, processes
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the NESHAP for this
source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT standards to include those
developments. Specifically, as we proposed, we are finalizing revisions
to the tank requirements to require increased control of emissions for
tanks in a specific size range that also contain material above a
specified vapor pressure, and we are finalizing revisions, as proposed,
to the equipment leak requirements to remove the option to comply with
either 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and
require compliance with only 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. As noted in
section III.A of the preamble, we are concurrently promulgating these
tank and equipment leak revisions under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?
We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the OSWRO NESHAP to
eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.
3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this
rule that apply at all times. Table 2 to Subpart DD of Part 63 (General
Provisions applicability table) is being revised to change several
references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We
also 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. We determined
that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable
emission standards in the OSWRO 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.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
OSWRO NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions in the following
paragraphs.
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that
owners and operators of OSWRO facilities submit electronic copies of
certain required performance test reports through an electronic
performance test report tool called the ERT. This requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to the EPA does not require any
additional performance testing and applies only to those performance
tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT.
We are finalizing the proposed revisions to the routine maintenance
provisions to limit their applicability to tanks routing emissions to a
control device rather than any equipment or process routing emissions
to a control device. This revision restores the OSWRO NESHAP provisions
to the original intent for them to be consistent with the routine
maintenance provisions of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON).
To reduce compliance uncertainty associated with ``sealed'' OELs,
we are
[[Page 14252]]
finalizing the proposed revisions to clarify that OELs are ``sealed''
by a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when instrument monitoring
of the OEL conducted according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A indicates no readings of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater. For
OELs that are exempt from the requirements to be equipped with a cap,
blind flange, plug or second valve, we are requiring them to be
equipped with a flow indicator, seal or locking device.
To conform with the reasoning of the Court's ruling in Sierra Club
v. EPA, we are finalizing the proposed requirements regarding releases
directly to the atmosphere from safety devices, pressure tanks,
bypasses and PRDs. These requirements prohibit bypasses of control
devices and prohibit emissions released directly to the atmosphere from
PRDs and closure devices on pressure tanks. In addition, we are
finalizing the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with releases to the atmosphere from bypasses and PRDs. We
are also finalizing the proposed requirements that PRDs be monitored
with a device or monitoring system that is capable of: (1) Identifying
the pressure release; (2) recording the time and duration of each
pressure release; and (3) notifying operators immediately that a
pressure release is occurring.
We are finalizing, as proposed, several minor changes to the test
methods and procedures required by the NESHAP to correct errors and to
provide consistency, clarification and flexibility.
In addition, we are finalizing, as proposed, several miscellaneous
minor changes to improve the clarity of the rule requirements.
We are also finalizing minor changes to the NESHAP in consideration
of comments received during the public comment period for the proposed
rulemaking, as described in section IV. D.2 of this preamble.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions to the
OSWRO NESHAP?
The effective date and compliance dates for the revisions to the
OSWRO NESHAP being promulgated in this action have not changed since
proposal.
The revisions to the OSWRO NESHAP being promulgated in this action
are effective on March 18, 2015.
The compliance date for the revised SSM requirements, electronic
reporting requirements, the revised routine maintenance provisions, the
operating and pressure release management requirements for PRDs, and
the revised requirements regarding bypasses and closure devices on
pressure tanks for existing OSWRO facilities is the effective date of
the standards March 18, 2015. The compliance date for existing OSWRO
facilities to comply with the PRD monitoring requirements is 3 years
from the effective date of the standards, March 20, 2018. The
compliance date for existing OSWRO facilities to comply with the
revised tank requirements is 2 years from the effective date of the
standards, March 20, 2017. For equipment leaks, the compliance date for
existing sources is 1 year from the effective date of the standards,
March 18, 2016.
New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon
the effective date of the standard, March 18, 2015, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the OSWRO source category?
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 available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the OSWRO
source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 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 July 2, 2014, proposed rule for the OSWRO NESHAP (79 FR 37850). The
results of the risk assessment are presented briefly below in Table 2,
and in more detail in the residual risk document, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source
Category in Support of the February 2015 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. Based
on actual emissions for the OSWRO source category, the maximum
individual risk (MIR) was estimated to be up to 9-in-1 million, the
maximum chronic non-cancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI)
value was estimated to be up to 0.6, and the maximum off-site acute
hazard quotient (HQ) value was estimated to be up to 1. The total
estimated national cancer incidence from this source category, based on
actual emission levels, was 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 50 years. Based on MACT-allowable emissions for the OSWRO
source category, the MIR was estimated to be up to 20-in-1 million, and
the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was estimated to be up to 1.
We also found there were emissions of one persistent and bio-
accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) with an available RTR multipathway screening
value, and the reported emissions of this HAP, 2-acetylaminofluorene
(which is a polycyclic organic matter (POM) compound), were below the
multipathway screening value for this compound. Emissions of three
environmental HAP, POM, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, were
reported by OSWRO facilities. For each of these three HAP, the modeled
concentrations were below the respective ecological benchmark values.
The maximum facility-wide MIR was 200-in-1 million and the maximum
facility-wide TOSHI was 4. These risks were found to be due to
emissions from non-OSWRO processes at the facility site and were based
on actual emissions. We weighed all health risk factors in our risk
acceptability determination, and we proposed that the residual risks
from the OSWRO source category are acceptable.
[[Page 14253]]
Table 2--Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) \a\ Maximum chronic non-
------------------------------------------------------- Estimated cancer TOSHI \b\
Estimated population at annual ----------------------------
MACT- increased risk levels of cancer MACT- Maximum screening acute
Actual emissions level allowable cancer incidence Actual allowable non-cancer HQ \d\
emissions (cases per emissions emissions
level \c\ year) level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9....................................... 20 >= 1-in-1 million: 210,000 0.02 0.6 1 HQREL = 1 (glycol ethers).
>= 10-in-1 million: 0.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\b\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the OSWRO source category for both actual and MACT-allowable emissions is the respiratory
system.
\c\ The development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memo MACT-Allowable Emissions for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
\d\ The maximum off-site acute value of 1 for actual emissions is driven by emissions of glycol ethers. Acute assessments are not performed with MACT-
allowable emissions.
We then considered whether the OSWRO NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and whether more stringent
standards are necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental
effect. In considering whether the standards should be tightened 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 control options identified to
reduce risk were the same as those identified under the technology
review for the OSWRO source category. Based on that analysis, we
proposed to require more stringent controls for tanks of certain sizes
and containing materials above a certain vapor pressure. We also
proposed to require facilities to comply with the more stringent leak
detection and repair (LDAR) program of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H rather
than to allow facilities to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart
H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. Furthermore, we proposed that
additional HAP emissions controls for OSWRO process vents are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. Based on the results of
our screening analysis for risks to the environment, we also proposed
that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the OSWRO source category since
the proposed rule?
Information received by the EPA during the proposal comment period
indicates that four additional facilities, not included in the risk
review for the OSWRO source category, are subject to the OSWRO NESHAP.
These facilities include Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport,
Tennessee; Eastman Chemical Company in Longview, Texas; E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company in Orange, Texas; and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company in Axis, Alabama.
To determine whether to conduct additional risk modeling for these
facilities, we reviewed the title V permits and the results of
previously performed risk modeling for these facilities. The review of
the facility title V permits, as well as conversations with facility
representatives, indicated that these facilities are primarily chemical
manufacturing plants with processes subject to other NESHAPs that also
process some amount of waste received from other facilities within
their companies. A review of previously modeled facility-wide risks for
these four facilities as part of the risk reviews for the other NESHAP
indicate that the maximum facility-wide cancer risks due to emissions
of HAP range from 6-in-1 million to 40-in-1 million. These risks are
relatively low when compared to the upper end of the range of
acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide non-cancer
risks due to HAP emissions range from 0.08 to 1. In addition, the
results show that the facility-wide cancer and non-cancer risks are
attributed to HAP emissions from non-OSWRO processes. As the OSWRO
processes are minor operations at these facilities, the risk due to
OSWRO operations is expected to be a small fraction of the facility-
wide risk.
Adding these facilities to the dataset and performing additional
modeling would not be expected to result in increased maximum risks
from the source category, for the reasons discussed above. Thus, we
determined that additional modeling to include these facilities is not
necessary, and, based on available information, the risks from these
four facilities do not change our decisions regarding risk
acceptability or ample margin of safety for the OSWRO source category.
We have not otherwise changed any aspects of our risk review since the
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally
supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin
of safety analysis and requirement for additional control. A summary of
these comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0360).
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the risk review?
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that
the risks from the OSWRO source category are acceptable, and the
revised requirements for tanks and equipment leaks described above will
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public. In addition, for
the reasons explained in the proposal, we determined that more
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety
or adverse environmental effects have changed. Therefore, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f)(2), we are revising the OSWRO NESHAP to require the
40 CFR part 63, subpart H LDAR program and more stringent emissions
controls for certain tanks to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public.
[[Page 14254]]
B. Technology Review for the OSWRO Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the OSWRO
source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes and control technologies for the emission sources
in the OSWRO source category. At proposal, we identified developments
in practices, processes or control technologies for process vents,
tanks and equipment leaks.
For process vents, one potential control technology was identified
at proposal, use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer, which could
increase the emissions capture and control efficiency from 95 percent
to 98 percent for those process vents that are currently controlled
with a carbon adsorption system or other device achieving 95-percent
control. We estimated an additional emission reduction of 10 tpy of HAP
would be associated with this increase in emissions control efficiency,
and the estimated costs would be $350,000 per ton of HAP emission
reduction.
For tanks, we identified two potential developments in practices
and control techniques at proposal. Option 1 would lower the vapor
pressure threshold above which ``Level 2'' control would be required
for some tanks. ``Level 2'' control essentially requires one of five
options: (1) A fixed roof tank equipped with an internal floating roof;
(2) a fixed roof tank equipped with an external floating roof; (3) a
tank with a vapor-tight cover and vented through a closed-vent system
to a control device that has an efficiency of 95 percent or more; (4) a
pressure tank; or (5) a tank inside a permanent total enclosure that is
vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed combustion control
device. Option 1 would require Level 2 emissions control for tanks with
capacities greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters (m\3\), but less
than 151 m\3\, if the vapor pressure of the stored material is 13
kilopascals (kPa) or greater, instead of 27.6 kPa or greater as
required by the current MACT standard. Option 2 would revise the vapor
pressure threshold as in Option 1 and increase the required control
efficiency from the current 95-percent to a 98-percent emissions
reduction for all tanks required to use Level 2 controls. For tank
Option 1, we estimated an additional emission reduction of up to 73 tpy
and estimated the costs would be $300 per ton of HAP emission
reduction. For tank Option 2, we estimated the HAP emissions reduction
incremental to Option 1 would be approximately 22 tpy and the
incremental cost effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would be
$56,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction.
For equipment leaks, we identified the more stringent leak
definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H over those of 40 CFR part 61,
subpart V as a development in practices, processes or control
technologies at proposal. To implement the subpart H LDAR program, two
options were identified: Option 1--switching from the subpart V LDAR
program to the subpart H LDAR program, without the connector monitoring
requirements; Option 2--switching from the subpart V LDAR program to
the subpart H LDAR program, with the connector monitoring requirements.
For Option 1, we estimated an additional emission reduction of up to 69
tpy and estimated the costs would be $1,000 per ton of HAP emission
reduction. For Option 2, we estimated the HAP emissions reduction
incremental to Option 1 would be approximately 70 tpy and the
incremental cost effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would be
$7,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction.
Based on the costs and the emission reductions that would be
achieved with the identified developments, we proposed to revise the
MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require Level 2
controls for tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75 m\3\,
but less than 151 m\3\, if the vapor pressure of the stored material is
13 kPa or greater and to require facilities to comply with the subpart
H LDAR program, including the subpart H requirements for connectors in
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. We proposed that it was
not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) to require 98-percent control, based on the use of a
regenerative thermal oxidizer, for process vents. More information
concerning our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled,
Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the Proposed Amendments to the
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source Category, which is
available in the docket, and in the preamble to the proposed rule, 79
FR at 37870 to 37873.
2. How did the technology review change for the OSWRO source category?
a. Tanks
The analysis of the proposed control requirements for tanks at
existing OSWRO facilities has been revised to reflect new data
submitted by industry during the comment period. As part of its
comments, the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition provided information to
demonstrate that alternative values or assumptions should be used in
the analysis of tank emission reductions and costs of control. These
comments were associated with the proposed requirement that Level 2
controls be used for tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75
m\3\, but less than 151 m\3\, if the vapor pressure of the stored
material is 13 kPa or greater (i.e., Option 1). We reviewed this
information, determined that several suggested changes were appropriate
because they more accurately reflect the conditions of tanks in the
OSWRO source category, and revised our analysis of tank emissions
reductions and control costs to incorporate the data submitted by the
commenter, where such incorporation was deemed appropriate. The major
revisions to the analysis included the use of different parameters in
estimating HAP emissions per tank and the inclusion of additional
emissions control equipment and ancillary equipment. In addition,
through further review of our previous analysis, we determined that the
number of tanks nationwide that would require control under Option 1
was overestimated, and we revised the estimated number of tanks that
would be affected by Option 1 in this analysis.
As shown in Table 3, our revised estimate of the capital costs for
the tanks Option 1 requirement is approximately $139,000, and the total
annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $192,000. The
estimated HAP emissions reduction is approximately 26 tpy, and the cost
effectiveness is approximately $7,000/ton.
[[Page 14255]]
Table 3--Revised Estimated Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Costs of Control Option 1 for Tanks at OSWRO
Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP emissions Cost
Regulatory alternative reduction Capital cost Annual costs ($/ effectiveness
(tpy) ($) yr) ($/ton HAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1.................................... 26.4 139,000 192,000 7,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At proposal, we also evaluated the impacts of requiring an
increased HAP emissions control efficiency of 98 percent based on the
use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer (i.e., Option 2) and found that
the costs of Option 2 were not reasonable given the level of HAP
emissions reductions that it would achieve. No comments were received
regarding Option 2, and we have not revised the analysis for Option 2.
For further details on the revised tanks analysis, see the
technical memorandum titled, Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations Tanks, available in the docket for this
action.
b. Equipment Leaks
As part of its comments on the proposed rule, one commenter noted
that the EPA did not account for monitoring of agitator seals on tanks
in its analysis of the costs of implementing the more stringent leak
definitions for equipment in 40 CFR part 63 subpart H. We have revised
our analysis of the costs and emissions reductions associated with
switching from the 40 CFR part 61, subpart V LDAR program to the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H LDAR program to include the expected emissions
reductions and costs associated with monitoring agitator seals for
leaks. Also, based on information received after proposal that there
are four additional facilities in the source category that would be
subject to the LDAR requirements of the rule, we have revised the
analysis to include those facilities. We included this information in
the evaluation of both regulatory options: Option 1--switching from a
subpart V LDAR program to a subpart H LDAR program, without the subpart
H connector monitoring requirements and Option 2--switching from a
subpart V LDAR program, with the subpart H connector monitoring
requirements.
The revised estimated costs and emissions reductions associated
with these two options are shown in Table 4. For Option 1 (subpart H
without connector monitoring), we estimate the capital costs to be
approximately $414,000, and the total annualized costs are estimated to
be approximately $155,000. The estimated HAP emissions reduction is
approximately 109 tpy, and the cost effectiveness is approximately
$1,000/ton. For Option 2 (subpart H with connector monitoring), we
estimate the capital costs to be approximately $2,089,000, and the
total annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $664,000. The
estimated HAP emissions reduction is approximately 185 tpy, and the
cost effectiveness is approximately $4,000/ton. The incremental cost
effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 is approximately $7,000.
Table 4--Revised Estimated Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Costs of Equipment Leak Control Options at OSWRO
Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
HAP emissions Cost cost
Regulatory alternative reduction Capital cost Annual costs effectiveness effectiveness
(tpy) ($) ($/yr) ($/ton HAP) ($/ton HAP
removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: Subpart H, no 108.7 414,000 155,000 1,000 ..............
connector monitoring...........
Option 2: Subpart H with 184.5 2,089,000 664,000 4,000 7,000
connector monitoring...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these revisions to the equipment leak analysis, we
also considered comments regarding the costs of connector monitoring.
In its comments on the proposed rule, one commenter claimed that the
costs the EPA included in its analysis for ongoing connector monitoring
and administrative activities were too low. Although we do not agree
with the commenter and we continue to believe the costs we used in the
analysis for these activities are reasonable, we conducted an
additional analysis to assess the potential effect of using the values
provided by the commenter on the cost effectiveness of Option 2. This
additional analysis showed there would be a slight increase in the
Option 2 total annualized cost to $672,000. The cost effectiveness
would remain approximately $4,000, and the incremental cost
effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would still be
approximately $7,000.
For further details on the revised equipment leaks analysis, see
the technical memorandum titled, Revised Technology Review for the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations Equipment Leaks, available in the
docket for this action.
c. Process Vents and Other OSWRO Equipment and Processes
For process vents and other equipment and processes at OSWRO
facilities, the technology review has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding
the OSWRO source category technology review and our responses to these
comments. Additional comments on the technology review and our
responses can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360).
Comment: One commenter states that the EPA did not account for
monitoring of agitator seals on tanks in its analysis of the costs of
implementing the more stringent leak definitions for equipment in 40
CFR part 63, subpart H, and
[[Page 14256]]
asserts that many tanks at OSWRO facilities are equipped with
agitators.
Response: We acknowledge that we did not, prior to proposal,
analyze the impacts of including monthly monitoring of agitators with
Method 21 for the proposed rule. We performed this analysis in response
to comments and have determined that the capital costs per facility for
agitator monitoring are approximately $1,000, and the total annualized
costs are estimated to be approximately $2,000. The estimated HAP
emissions reduction is approximately 0.7 tpy, and the cost
effectiveness is approximately $2,000/ton. Agitator monitoring would be
included in both LDAR Options 1 and 2. To determine the effect of
including agitator monitoring in the LDAR program options, we compared
the costs and emissions reductions on a per facility basis rather than
for the whole source category to avoid issues with differences in the
number of facilities included in the source category. The effect of
including agitator monitoring in Option 1 is an increase in the per
facility capital costs from approximately $7,000 to approximately
$8,000, an increase in the total annualized costs from approximately
$1,500 to approximately $3,000, an increase in the estimated HAP
emissions reduction from approximately 1.5 to approximately 2.2 tpy,
and the cost effectiveness value remaining at approximately $1,000/ton.
The effect of including agitator monitoring in Option 2 is an increase
in the per facility capital costs from approximately $41,000 to
approximately $43,000, an increase in the total annualized costs from
approximately $12,000 to approximately $14,000, and an increase in the
estimated HAP emissions reduction from approximately 3.1 to
approximately 3.8 tpy. The cost effectiveness remains at approximately
$4,000/ton, and the incremental cost effectiveness compared with Option
1 remains the same at $7,000/ton. Further details on the revised
equipment leaks analysis are documented in the technical memorandum
titled, Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations Equipment Leaks, available in the docket for this action.
Based on our analysis of the costs of a 40 CFR part 63, subpart H
LDAR program with monthly agitator monitoring using Method 21, we are
finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that OSWRO facilities comply
with subpart H, including the subpart H requirements for connectors in
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
Comment: Several commenters dispute the EPA's emission reduction
estimates related to connector monitoring. One of these commenters
notes that the EPA based its cost-effectiveness calculations on the
approach from the December 21, 2011, memorandum, Analysis of Emissions
Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks, developed for the Uniform
Standards, and provides comments on the approach used in this
memorandum. This commenter and another commenter state that the leak
rate factor of 1.7 for connectors was determined for the refining
industry, and the EPA provides no basis that it applies to the
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) or the OSWRO
source category. One commenter states that if the EPA believes the 1.7
factor is warranted, it should use petroleum refinery leak rates as a
starting point instead of SOCMI rates. The commenter asserts that based
on the experience of member companies with process units subject to HON
connector monitoring, commencement of Method 21 monitoring with a leak
definition of 500 ppm will not reduce emissions by 50 percent, as the
EPA estimates. This commenter submitted a report that concluded there
is no statistical difference in average leak rates between the initial
Method 21 inspections and subsequent inspections and that volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from connectors at plants subject to
the HON or Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) are far below SOCMI
average factor estimates. The commenter suggests that sensory methods
of detecting leaks are adequate and the imposition of Method 21 in
addition to current practices will not further reduce the number of
leaks. The commenter asserts that operators are trained to recognize
hazards associated with leaks using sensory methods and are expected to
take prompt action when leaks occur.
Another commenter asserts that the revised monitoring requirements
for connectors will not result in substantial, or any, HAP emission
reductions. The commenter's assertion is based on data obtained from
LDAR records of its member facilities, where only five connectors were
found to have a leak above 500 ppm out of 10,542 connectors analyzed
over the past year. The commenter also asserts that the EPA's
assumption of 82-percent HAP composition is incorrect, and was taken
from an OSWRO NESHAP background information document from 1994 which is
based on an outdated HAP list (i.e., methyl ethyl ketone has since been
removed).
Response: The EPA stands by our analysis of emission reduction
estimates related to connector monitoring for the OSWRO source
category.
Regarding the factor used in estimating the leak frequency, we
increased the connector leak frequency by a factor of 1.7. As explained
below, we believe it is appropriate to apply this factor to the OSWRO
source category to account for differences in industry-reported and
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) measured leak
frequencies. In 1999, the NEIC published the results of a comparative
monitoring study at 17 petroleum refineries, which showed the
percentage of valves identified as leaking by NEIC was always higher
than the results of monitoring conducted by the petroleum refiners.\3\
This NEIC report states that the disparity between the NEIC and company
results may be attributable to refineries not monitoring in the manner
prescribed in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. In a
subsequent analysis of these results, the NEIC results were shown to be
higher than the industry results by a factor of at least 2.6 at the 99-
percent confidence level.\4\ As the initial connector leak frequency
used in the analysis of OSWRO connector leak emissions was the same as
that used in the Uniform Standards analysis,\5\ which was based on
industry-supplied data for facilities regulated by the MON, we applied
a factor to account for the differences noted between industry-supplied
data and NEIC-measured leak frequency data. For the OSWRO analysis, the
factor of 1.7 was used rather than 2.6. This 1.7 factor represents the
10th percentile of the data set (i.e., 90 percent of the NEIC leak
frequencies were at least 1.7 times higher than the leak frequencies
reported by the refineries). This conservative factor was chosen, in
part, to account for the possibility that refineries and OSWRO
facilities could leak at different rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
October 1999. Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to
Reducing `Fugitive Emissions' Under Leak Detection and Repair
Programs.
\4\ Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI International, to K.
Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Statistical Analysis of Valve Leak
Frequencies Obtained by Industry and EPA for Petroleum Refining
Process Units.
\5\ Memorandum from C. Hancy, RTI International, to J. Howard,
USEPA. December 21, 2011. Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques
for Equipment Leaks. This memorandum is available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter that applying the connector leak
frequency
[[Page 14257]]
factor of 1.7 necessitates the use of petroleum refinery leak frequency
rates. Since the process equipment and chemicals used at OSWRO
facilities are more similar to those of the SOCMI than those at
petroleum refineries, we believe it is appropriate to use SOCMI leak
frequencies. Further, the factor we applied to the connector leak
frequency to account for differences noted between industry-supplied
and NEIC-measured data already accounted for potential differences in
leak frequencies between petroleum refineries and OSWRO facilities by
using the more conservative factor of 1.7 than the factor of 2.6 that
would be applied to refinery data. We note that the initial leak
frequency of 0.36 percent used in the OSWRO analysis is the same as
that reported by the commenter's member companies for the HON initial
monitoring, and we made the conservative assumption that the subsequent
leak frequency after implementation of Method 21 monitoring of
connectors would be the same as the initial leak frequency. However, we
also assumed, as we have in other rulemakings, that these leaking
connectors would be fixed so that the average leak frequency over each
monitoring cycle would be equal to one-half of the subsequent leak
frequency (i.e., 0.18 percent).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, RTI
International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Final Impacts
Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
SOCMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter's claim that the estimated emissions
per connector used in the EPA's analysis are too high. The leak rates
used were based on those reported in the Protocol for Equipment Leak
Emissions Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995), which determined
these leak rates based on screening data from 33 chemical production
units and bagging data from 22 chemical production units. We consider
this to be relevant and robust data, and the resulting average leak
emissions rates are appropriate to use in our analyses.
We agree with the commenter that the HAP composition used in our
analyses of 82 percent was taken from the 1994 OSWRO NESHAP background
information document. The commenter did not provide any information to
show that another estimate of HAP composition would be appropriate,
and, without any basis for a different value, we have not changed our
analyses to include a different HAP composition.
Comment: Two commenters dispute the EPA's assessment of the costs
to monitor connectors. Specifically, one commenter disputes the EPA's
assumed cost of $2.50 per monitored connector and outlines the various
challenges in monitoring connectors in comparison with other types of
equipment components. The other commenter states that the EPA
underestimated the annual administrative costs of monitoring connectors
and provides their own estimate of $27,000. Both commenters provide a
revised analysis of the cost of connector monitoring based on a recent
study conducted by one company at one facility, and conclude that
monitoring connectors would cost $6.50 per component and $18,139/ton.
Another commenter states that the requirement to conduct connector
monitoring could result in OSWRO facilities being forced to hire
outside consultants to perform the monitoring due to the large number
of connectors at each site and that the annual monitoring costs for
connectors could be the same as that for all other monitored
components.
Response: We have considered the commenters' concerns that the
estimated connector monitoring costs used in our analysis of the costs
of an LDAR program, including periodic connector monitoring using
Method 21, are too low. The two areas in which the commenters dispute
the estimated connector monitoring costs are in the ongoing monitoring
costs per connector and the estimated annual administrative and
reporting costs. Regarding ongoing monitoring costs, we do not believe
the $2.50 used in the EPA's analysis is an unreasonable estimate of the
monitoring costs per connector. This estimate is based on an average
monitoring cost per component of $1.00 to $1.50, and then increased to
$2.50 to account for industry claims that connectors are more difficult
than other components to monitor.\7\ However, to determine how a fee of
$6.50 per connector, as suggested by the commenters, would affect the
cost effectiveness of the provisions, we conducted an additional
analysis of costs of an LDAR program using this value. We note that all
monitoring costs already assume an outside contractor would be used.
Regarding the administrative and reporting costs, the submitted study
includes $27,000 per year for these activities for connectors alone. At
the labor rates used in the study, this equates to 781 hours per year.
We do not find this amount of time to be reasonable for connector
administrative and reporting costs, especially considering that
connector monitoring may only be required once every four years.
However, it may be possible that our estimate of 50 hours per year at a
labor rate of $92.92 per hour overestimates the labor rate and
underestimates the amount of time required to complete the necessary
administrative requirements. Therefore, we conducted an additional
analysis of the costs of the LDAR program assuming twice as many hours
as we previously estimated and the labor rates provided by the
commenter for these administrative actions. Using these more
conservative values, the incremental cost effectiveness for connectors
would be $6,825/ton. This incremental cost effectiveness is still
$7,000/ton of HAP reduced, as was calculated without the alternate
connector monitoring costs. Therefore, using these alternative values
would not change our determination that the costs of the subpart H LDAR
program (including connector monitoring) are reasonable, given the
level of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved, and we are
finalizing the equipment leak amendments to require subpart H LDAR
(including connector monitoring) as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, RTI
International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 2007. Final Impacts
Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
SOCMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter states the EPA used several assumptions the
commenter does not agree with in its estimate of emissions from tanks.
One is that the EPA overestimated the tank throughput. The commenter
asserts that, based on data from its members, the average waste
throughput is typically less than 20,000,000 gallons for each facility,
which is much lower than the EPA's estimate of 35,000,000 gallons per
facility. The commenter also disagrees with the EPA's assumption that
OSWRO tanks contain 100-percent HAP, as hazardous wastes processed by
OSWRO facilities contain a large portion of organic and inorganic non-
HAP constituents. The commenter estimates that as little as 50 percent
of the tank constituents are HAP and provided a suggested mix of HAP
constituents. The commenter also states that the EPA's selection of
Houston as the location of the model facility is inappropriate because
of its average sub-tropical temperatures, and a location more
representative of the national average should be selected. The
commenter also states that the EPA's use of the default conservation
vent pressure settings of 0.03 pounds per square inch (psi) and -0.03
psi in the calculation of uncontrolled emissions is too low, and actual
pressure settings for tanks currently subject to the OSWRO Level 1
control requirements are typically set at 0.5 psi.
[[Page 14258]]
This commenter also disputes the EPA's estimate of the costs that
would be incurred by facilities to comply with the proposed amendments
to the vapor pressure thresholds for tank control level. The commenter
states that contrary to the EPA's assumptions, there are a significant
number of sources that would require the installation of a new control
device or would have to upgrade and/or expand their existing control
device systems to comply with the Control Level 2 standards. The
commenter asserts that the EPA provided no assessment of whether
existing control devices are sized to accommodate additional vented
sources, and control devices are typically not sized with significant
excess capacity due to economic and space considerations. The commenter
states that the EPA also did not consider flame arrestors to prevent
back-flash to tanks, which would cost $10,000 per unit. In addition,
the commenter asserts that the EPA did not consider capital costs
related to engineering installation, or regulatory and safety costs,
such as additional process hazard reviews and analyses under either the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety
Management or CAA Risk Management Plan regulations that would likely be
required if tanks are connected to a control device.
The commenter also disputes EPA's estimate of annual costs, and
states that the EPA did not consider the additional cost associated
with operation of the control device itself, such as costs associated
with replacement and disposal or regeneration of carbon (for a carbon
adsorption system). The commenter asserts that the annual cost should
still be applied even if there is an existing control device because
annual carbon costs are a function of the throughput of the newly
affected units. The commenter further asserts that additional annual
and capital costs would be incurred from the operation of a nitrogen
blanketing system that may be required if carbon adsorption units is
used as the HAP control device.
The commenter estimates that the cost effectiveness of the proposed
amendments to the tank vapor pressure thresholds is actually $48,000
per ton of HAP controlled, which the commenter claims is an unnecessary
cost to achieve minor emission reductions.
Response: Our analysis presented the best quantification of the
emission reductions and costs of the proposed amendments to the tank
provisions based on the information available at the time. We have
revised some of the assumptions used in the analysis to address
concerns raised by the commenter and to include additional information
that the commenter has provided. Details of this analysis are presented
in the memo, Revised Technology Review for the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations Tanks, which is available in the docket for this
action.
We agree with the commenter that OSWRO tanks likely do not contain
100-percent HAP, and have revised the analysis to include a mix of tank
constituents that comprises 60-percent HAP, as suggested by the
commenter. We have moved the location of the model facility from
Houston to a location near the center of the continental United States,
which has temperatures more representative of the national average. We
have also increased the conservation vent pressure setting from the
default value of 0.03 psi to 0.5 psi, as suggested by the commenter. We
did not revise the average waste throughput used in the analysis. The
commenter did not provide data to support the claim that the average
waste throughput is actually 20,000,000 gallons per facility, and the
EPA's estimate of 35,000,000 gallons per facility is supported by data
obtained through the 2013 CAA section 114 questionnaire for the one
OSWRO facility with tanks in the size and vapor pressure range affected
by the proposed standards.
In addition, while some facilities may have control devices with
adequate capacity to control emissions from the additional tanks that
would become subject to Level 2 control requirements as a result of the
proposed amendments, it may be possible that some facilities do not
have the required excess capacity. Therefore, we have revised the
analysis to add the conservative assumption that each facility would
need to install a carbon adsorber to comply with the proposed
amendments. The revised analysis includes the cost of a carbon adsorber
canister system, including installation and other associated capital
costs, as well as annual costs for the operation of the device (e.g.,
cost of carbon). We have also revised the analysis to include costs for
flame arrestors, as suggested by the commenter. We have revised the
number of tanks in the analysis from 21 to 14 to account for seven
tanks that are known to already be controlled based on information
collected through the CAA section 114 questionnaire.
We disagree with the commenter that the cost of nitrogen blanketing
systems should be included in the analysis. Nitrogen blankets are not
required by the OSWRO NESHAP for use with a control device, and we do
not believe that nitrogen blankets are necessary for the operation of
control devices, including a carbon adsorption system, as suggested by
the commenter. Further, nitrogen blanketing systems can be used on
tanks that are not controlled by a control device, and may already be
in place for the tanks that would be affected by the revised standard.
We also disagree with the commenter that we have not considered capital
costs related to engineering installation and regulatory and safety
costs. We explicitly include installation costs of equipment, and we
follow the procedure of the EPA Control Cost Manual for including
indirect costs.
Considering the revisions to emission controls and costs identified
above, we have determined that the capital costs for the proposed
amendments to the tank provisions are approximately $139,000, and the
total annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $192,000. The
estimated HAP emissions reduction is approximately 26 tpy, and the cost
effectiveness is approximately $7,000 per ton of HAP reduced. While the
revised analysis resulted in lower emission reductions at a higher cost
than the estimates developed prior to proposal, we still find the
amendments to the tank control provisions to be cost effective, and
are, therefore, finalizing the amendments as proposed.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the technology
review?
Based on our revised analysis for tanks, the costs of Option 1 are
reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions reduction that would be
achieved with this control option. Therefore, as a result of this
revised technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we have
determined, as we did at proposal, that it is appropriate to revise the
OSWRO NESHAP to require Level 2 controls for tanks with capacities
greater than or equal to 75 m\3\, but less than 151 m\3\, if the vapor
pressure of the stored material is 13 kPa or greater.
Considering our revised analysis for equipment leaks, we have
determined the costs of Option 2, which includes all of the
requirements of Option 1, are reasonable, given the level of HAP
emissions reduction that would be achieved with this control option. We
note that, while we did not include the higher connector monitoring
costs analyzed in response to commenter suggestions in this
determination, the inclusion of these costs would not change our
conclusion that the costs of Option 2 are reasonable, given the level
of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved with this control
option.
[[Page 14259]]
Therefore, as a result of this revised technology review pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6), we have determined, as we did at proposal, that
it is appropriate to revise the OSWRO NESHAP to require existing and
new affected sources to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H rather
than 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, including the subpart H requirements
for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.
As noted in section IV.A.4 of the preamble, we are promulgating
these revisions concurrently under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above and in the preamble to the
proposed rule, we have determined that it is not necessary pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the OSWRO NESHAP to require additional
HAP emission controls for process vents or any other equipment or
processes at OSWRO facilities.
C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions for the OSWRO Source
Category
1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the OSWRO source category?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed standards in this rule that apply
at all times. We have also revised Table 2 (the General Provisions
applicability table) in several respects as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is
related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed
rule and summarized again here.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA took into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, did
not propose alternate standards for those periods. Information on
periods of startup and shutdown received from the facilities through
CAA section 114 questionnaire responses indicated that emissions during
these periods are the same as during normal operations. The facilities
do not process waste unless and until their control devices are
operating to fully control emissions. Therefore, we determined that
separate standards for periods of startup and shutdown are not
necessary.
Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). 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. Under CAA
section 112, emission standards for new sources must be no less
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the EPA to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average
emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of''
sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is
to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734
F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emission standards, nothing in CAA section 112
requires the EPA to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A
malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources
to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation
of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods,
[[Page 14260]]
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 interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
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.
To address the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), we proposed to
revise and add certain provisions to the OSWRO rule. As described in
detail below, we proposed to revise the General Provisions
Applicability Table (Table 2) to change several references related to
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We also proposed to add
the following provisions to the OSWRO rule: (1) The general duty to
minimize emissions at all times; (2) the requirement for sources to
comply with the emission limits in the rule at all times, with
clarification for what constitutes a deviation; (3) performance testing
conditions requirements; (4) excused monitoring excursions provisions;
and (5) malfunction recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
i. General Duty
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by adding rows specifically for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), and 63.6(e)(3) and
to include a ``no'' in the column 2 for the 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) entry.
Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions.
Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or
appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We
proposed instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.683(e) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA proposed for 40 CFR 63.683(e)
does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We also proposed to include a ``no'' in column 2 for the newly
added entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 63.683(e).
The provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) still apply, and we
proposed to keep the ``yes'' in column 2 for that section. For 40 CFR
63.6(e)(2), we proposed to include a ``no'' in the second column for
that section because it is a reserved section in the General
Provisions.
We also proposed to clarify in the applicability section of 40 CFR
63.680(g)(1) and (2) that the emission limits of subpart DD apply at
all times except when the affected source is not operating and that the
owner or operator must not shut down items of equipment required or
used for compliance with the requirements of subpart DD.
ii. SSM Plan
We proposed to include a ``no'' in column 2 for the newly added 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3) entry. Generally, this paragraph requires development of
an SSM plan and specifies SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for
and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer
necessary.
iii. Compliance With Standards
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column
2 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA
proposed to revise the standards in this rule to apply at all times.
iv. Performance Testing
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column
2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA instead proposed to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.694(l). The performance testing requirements
we proposed to add differ from the General Provisions performance
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions specified that
performance tests conducted under this subpart should be based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions often are
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA proposed to
add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance
test'' upon request, but does not specifically require the information
to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA proposed to add to this
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement
to record the information.
[[Page 14261]]
v. Monitoring
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 2 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
vi. Recordkeeping
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA proposed that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 2 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA proposed to
add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.696(h). The regulatory text we
proposed to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in
that the General Provisions require the creation and retention of a
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process,
air pollution control and monitoring equipment. The EPA proposed that
this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard
and is requiring that the source record the date, time and duration of
the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA also proposed to
add to 40 CFR 63.696(h) a requirement that sources keep records that
include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to
minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet
the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA
proposed to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 2 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.696(h).
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 2 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
vii. Reporting
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by consolidating it with the
entry for 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements for
SSM. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirements, the EPA
proposed to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.697(b)(3). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We
proposed language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable
standard at any time to report the information concerning such events
in the semiannual summary report already required under this rule. We
proposed that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration
and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable),
a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity
of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA proposed this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminated the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We proposed to revise the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by consolidating it with the
entry for 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 2 to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdown and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a
startup, shutdown or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required.
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the OSWRO source category?
We have not changed any aspect of the SSM provisions since the
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
Comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to remove
the SSM exemptions for the OSWRO source category. Some commenters
suggested that the rule should provide a six-month compliance period
for the SSM provisions, that the rule requirements, which were based on
steady-state conditions, should not apply during periods of
malfunction, and that the EPA should establish work practice standards
for malfunctions. One
[[Page 14262]]
commenter generally supported the revised provisions for the emission
standards in the OSWRO NESHAP to apply at all times but suggested that
more stringent monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and notification
requirements are needed for malfunctions. The commenters did not
provide new information or a basis for EPA to change the proposed
provisions and did not provide sufficient information to show that
facilities cannot comply with the MACT standards at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The comments
and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the
Comment Summary and Response document available in the docket for this
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360).
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM
provisions?
For the reasons provided above, provided in the preamble for the
proposed rule and provided in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the
OSWRO NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or
modified inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the
absence of the SSM exemption. We are, therefore, finalizing our
proposed determination that facilities comply with the standards at all
times and no additional standards are needed to address emissions
during startup or shutdown periods.
D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO NESHAP
1. What other changes did we propose for the OSWRO NESHAP?
i. Electronic Reporting
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, to increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, the EPA
proposed to require owners and operators of OSWRO facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.
Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will
generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then
archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/cdx).
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA will not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking
benefits industry by reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance
test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI will no longer
be required to be kept in hard copy.
State, local and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined
and accurate review of performance test data that will become available
to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble to the proposal.
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations and providing greater
transparency to the public.
ii. Routine Maintenance
The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.693(b)(3)(i) allows a facility to
bypass control devices for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned
routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or control device in
situations when the routine maintenance cannot be performed during
periods that the control device is shut down.
The routine maintenance provision was originally established in the
HON (see 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3)-(4); 57 FR 62710, December 31, 1992
(proposed); 59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994 (final)) for facilities that
elected to use a closed vent system and control device to comply with
the emission limitation requirements for tanks. We included the routine
maintenance provision in the HON for tanks routing emissions to control
devices because the estimated HAP emissions to degas the tank would be
greater than the emissions that would result if the tank emitted
directly to the atmosphere for a short period of time during routine
maintenance of the control device.
We intended for the OSWRO NESHAP to track the HON maintenance
provisions, and, therefore, those provisions should have been limited
to tanks. We did not identify a basis for applying the routine
maintenance provisions in the OSWRO NESHAP to emission points other
than tanks, and, therefore, proposed to limit the provision to tanks
routing emissions to a control device, consistent with the rationale
provided in the HON.
iii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.691(b) requires an owner or operator
to control emissions from equipment leaks according to the requirements
of either 40 CFR part 61, subpart V or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H.\8\
For OELs, both subpart V in 40 CFR 61.242-6(a) and subpart H in 40 CFR
63.167(a) require that the open end be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve that shall ``seal the open end.'' However,
``seal'' is not defined in either subpart, leading to uncertainty for
the owner or operator as to whether compliance is being achieved.
Inspections under the EPA's Air Toxics LDAR initiative have provided
evidence that while certain OELs may be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve, they are not operating in a ``sealed''
manner as the EPA interprets that term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As discussed in sections III.A, III.B, IV.A and IV.B of this
preamble, we are removing the option from subpart DD to comply with
40 CFR part 61, subpart V for equipment leaks and are requiring
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The compliance date for
existing sources is 1 year from the effective date of the final
amendments, and new sources must comply immediately upon the
effective date of the final amendments, or upon startup, whichever
is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this uncertainty, we proposed to amend 40 CFR
63.691(b) to clarify what ``seal the open end'' means for OELs. The
proposed clarification explains that, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR 61.242-6(a)(2) of subpart V or 40 CFR
63.167(a)(2) of subpart H, as applicable, OELs are ``sealed'' by the
cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when instrument monitoring of
the OELs conducted according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
In addition, 40 CFR 63.167(d) of subpart H and 40 CFR 61.242-6(d)
of subpart V exempt OELs that are in an
[[Page 14263]]
emergency shutdown system, and which are designed to open
automatically, from the requirements to be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve that seals the open end. We proposed that
these OELs be equipped with either a flow indicator or a seal or
locking device. We also proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for these OELs.
iv. Safety Devices, Pressure Tanks, Bypasses and PRDs
To ensure the OSWRO MACT standards are consistent with the Sierra
Club decision, we proposed to remove the SSM exemption from the rule.
In addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-caused releases
to the atmosphere to conform with the reasoning of the Court's ruling,
we proposed to add a provision that releases of HAP listed in Table 1
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD directly to the atmosphere from PRDs and
closure devices on pressure tanks in off-site material service are
prohibited. We also proposed to prohibit bypasses that divert a process
vent or closed vent system stream to the atmosphere such that it does
not first pass through an emission control device, except to perform
planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or emission
control device for tanks, as discussed in section IV.D.3 of this
preamble. We further proposed to require owners or operators to keep
records and report any bypass and the amount of HAP released to the
atmosphere with the next periodic report. In addition, to add clarity
to these provisions, we proposed to add definitions for ``bypass,''
``pressure release,'' ``pressure relief device or valve,'' ``in gas/
vapor service,'' ``in light liquid service,'' ``in heavy liquid
service'' and ``in liquid service'' to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. We
also proposed to remove the definition of ``safety device'' and the
provisions related to safety devices from 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD,
which would overlap with and be redundant of parts of the proposed
definition of ``pressure relief device or valve'' and the provisions
related to these devices.
To ensure compliance with these provisions, we also proposed that
facilities subject to the OSWRO NESHAP monitor PRDs in off-site
material service that release to the atmosphere by using a device or
system that is capable of identifying and recording the time and
duration of each pressure release and notifying operators immediately
that a pressure release is occurring. Owners or operators would be
required to keep records and report any pressure release and the amount
of organic HAP released to the atmosphere with the next periodic
report. As with the prohibition, this proposed monitoring requirement
would not apply to PRDs for which HAP releases are captured and routed
to a drain system, process or control device.
For purposes of estimating the costs of the proposed requirement to
monitor HAP releases to the atmosphere from PRDs, we assumed that
operators would install electronic indicators on each PRD in off-site
material service that vents to the atmosphere (rather than to a control
device, process or drain system) to identify and record the time and
duration of each pressure release. However, the proposed requirements
allowed owners or operators to use a range of methods to satisfy these
requirements, including the use of a parametric monitoring system (that
may already be in use at facilities) on the process system or piping
that is sufficient to notify operators immediately that a release is
occurring, as well as recording the time and duration of the pressure
release. Based on our conservative cost assumptions that the most
expensive approach would be used, the nationwide capital cost of
installing these monitors was estimated to be $1.75 million, and the
total annualized cost of installing and operating these monitors is
$250,000 per year for the OSWRO source category.
v. Performance Test Method Clarifications and Alternative Methods
The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.694 specifies test methods and
procedures to be used in determining compliance with the requirements
of subpart DD. We proposed several minor changes to these provisions to
correct errors and to provide consistency, clarification and
flexibility. These proposed changes included:
Requiring that test runs last ``at least 1 hour,'' rather
than stating that tests last ``1 hour'' in Sec. 63.694(f)(1) and
(i)(1);
Specifying that a minimum of three test runs are required
in Sec. 63.694(l)(3)(i) and (l)(4)(i), consistent with the Part 63
General Provisions and standard testing practices;
Specifying in Sec. 63.694(m)(2) that in the determination
of process vent stream flow rate and total HAP concentration, the
sample site selected must be at the center of the vent for vents
smaller than 0.10 meter in diameter, which is the point most likely to
provide a representative sample of the gas stream;
Clarifying in Sec. 63.694(j)(3) that results from direct
measurement must be used as the maximum HAP vapor pressure for off-site
material in a tank if the Administrator and the owner or operator
disagree on a determination of the maximum HAP vapor pressure for an
off-site material stream using knowledge;
Correcting a citation in Sec. 63.694(k)(3) to the
appropriate section of EPA Method 21 for instrument response factors;
Allowing the use of either EPA Method 25A or Method 18 in
Sec. 63.694(l)(3) for determining compliance with the control device
percent reduction requirement and in Sec. 63.694(l)(4) for determining
compliance with the enclosed combustion device concentration limit and
clarifying that Method 25A must be used when measuring total organic
compounds, while Method 18 must be used for measuring the total HAP
compounds included in Table 1 to the OSWRO NESHAP;
Including the use of EPA Method 3A as an alternative to
EPA Method 3B in Sec. 63.694(l)(4)(iii)(A) for determining the oxygen
concentration to use in oxygen correction equations; and
Including the use of EPA Methods 2F and 2G as options for
flow rate measurement in Sec. 63.694(l)(2) and (m)(3), which are newer
velocity measurement methods that were published after the original
OSWRO rule.
vi. Other Clarifications and Corrections
We proposed several miscellaneous minor changes to improve the
clarity of the OSWRO NESHAP requirements. These proposed changes
included:
Updating the list of combustion devices in Sec.
63.684(b)(5) that may be used to destroy the HAP contained in an off-
site material stream. This revision would include incinerators, boilers
or industrial furnaces for which the owner or operator complies with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, which had not been
promulgated when the OSWRO MACT standards were developed. We also
proposed conforming changes to the boiler and process heater control
device requirements to clarify that combustion units complying with the
requirements of subpart EEE may be used for the purposes of compliance
with the OSWRO NESHAP.
To clarify the requirements for tanks of all sizes and
tank content vapor pressures, we proposed to revise the tank control
level tables to include tanks less than 75 m\3\ in capacity with a
vapor pressure less than 76.6 kPa along with the requirements for tanks
of other sizes and vapor pressures, and we proposed
[[Page 14264]]
to remove the requirements for these tanks from the text of Sec.
63.685(b)(4).
Clarifying that where Sec. 63.691 requires the owner or
operator to control the HAP emitted from equipment leaks in accordance
with either 40 CFR part 61, subpart V or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the
definitions in 40 CFR 61.241 and 40 CFR 63.161 apply, with the
differences listed, for the purposes of the OSWRO NESHAP.
Revising the clerical errors to insert ppm values in the
requirements where they were omitted. These revisions included
clarifying in Sec. 63.683(c)(1)(ii) that the average volatile organic
HAP (VOHAP) concentration of the off-site material must be less than
500 parts per million by weight (ppmw) at the point-of-delivery and
clarifying the requirements of Sec. 63.693(f)(1)(i)(B) and Sec.
63.693(f)(1)(ii)(B) are to achieve a total incinerator outlet
concentration of less than or equal to 20 500 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) on a dry basis corrected to 3-percent oxygen.
Clarifying in Sec. Sec. 63.684(h), 63.693(b)(8) and
63.694(b)(3)(iv) that the Administrator may require a performance test,
revisions to a control device design analysis, or that direct
measurement be used in the determination of a VOHAP concentration,
rather than that the Administrator may only request such actions.
Revising several references to the Part 63 General
Provisions in Table 2 to correct errors, including errors where the
entries in Table 2 conflict with the regulatory text in subpart DD and
where references to specific sections of the General Provisions do not
exist or are reserved.
2. How did the provisions regarding these other proposed changes to the
OSWRO NESHAP change since proposal?
We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for
electronic reporting, routine maintenance, OELs, the proposed
performance test method clarifications and alternative methods or the
other proposed clarifications and corrections.
For PRDs, in the PRD monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(i), we are including examples of parametric monitoring
systems, in addition to the direct monitoring device examples listed at
proposal. We are also clarifying that tank conservation vents are not
PRDs in 40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B), and we are adding fuel gas systems
to the list of equipment a PRD may be routed to in 40 CFR 63.691(c)(4)
to be exempt from the PRD monitoring requirements and pressure release
prohibition. In addition to these revisions, we are making the
following revisions, clarifications and corrections in the final rule:
Revisions
[cir] We are revising the language in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v) to
indicate that facilities complying with the wastewater provisions under
any other part 63 regulation, not just the HON, are not required to
also comply with the OSWRO NESHAP provisions for that waste.
[cir] We are revising the requirements for boilers and process
heaters and also for incinerators in 40 CFR 63.693(f)(2)(iii) and
63.693(g)(2)(i)(C) to exclude such equipment that has been issued a
final or interim status RCRA permit from the OSWRO NESHAP performance
test requirements, since the performance tests required under RCRA to
obtain a permit satisfy the performance test requirements of the OSWRO
NESHAP.
[cir] We are revising three additional references to the Part 63
General Provisions in Table 2 to correct errors where the entries in
Table 2 conflict with the regulatory text in subpart DD regarding
notification of performance tests. The specific changes were to revise
the entries for 63.7(b), 63.7(c) and 63.9(e) from a ``no'' to a ``yes''
in column 2 of Table 2.
Clarifications
[cir] We are revising the definitions of ``in gas/vapor service''
and ``in light liquid service'' in 40 CFR 63.681 to clarify our intent
that equipment in off-site material service that ``contains or
contacts'' a gas or vapor is ``in gas/vapor service.'' For consistency,
we are also revising the definition of ``in light liquid service'' to
include equipment that ``contains or contacts'' liquid.
[cir] To improve clarity we are revising the wording of the
proposed tank provisions in 40 CFR 63.685(g)(2) to remove a repeated
phrase.
[cir] We have rephrased the proposed requirements in 40 CFR
63.694(l) to more simply state that performance tests must be conducted
under representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal
operating conditions).
[cir] We have added language in 40 CFR 63.691(b)(2)(v) to clarify
which requirements apply to PRDs in liquid service and to clarify when
the PRD provisions of 40 CFR 63.691(c) apply rather than the PRD
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V.
Corrections
[cir] We are revising 40 CFR 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii) and
63.680(e)(2) to reference 63.691(b)(2) rather than 63.691(b) to
indicate that compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is required
after a specified date. Consistent with our intention discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, this correction will allow compliance
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V only until the date at which compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is required.
[cir] We are including the correct VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw
in 40 CFR 63.683(c)(1)(ii).
[cir] We are correcting an erroneous reference to 40 CFR part 67 in
40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B) to properly reference 40 CFR part 63.
[cir] We are adding a reference in the semiannual reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 63.697(b)(4) to 40 CFR 63.683(f), which includes
additional deviations that must be reported.
[cir] We are correcting three entries in the General Provisions
Applicability table
3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the OSWRO
NESHAP, and what are our responses?
Several comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to
the ERT, OELs, PRDs and other provisions for the OSWRO source category.
The following is a summary of several of these comments and our
response to those comments. Other comments received and our responses
to those comments can be found in the Comment Summary and Response
document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0360).
i. Electronic Reporting
Comment: One commenter notes that requiring electronic reporting to
the EPA does not increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal for
the regulated community because state agencies also want the reports
submitted to them in their own standard format. The commenter requests
that the EPA work with air agencies to provide a one-stop location for
submittal of air emissions testing results.
Response: The EPA continues to work with air agencies as well as
stack testing companies (who typically prepare test reports) to develop
the ERT. E-Enterprise is an EPA-state initiative to improve
environmental performance and enhance services to the regulated
community, environmental agencies and the public. We currently have
active E-Enterprise projects related to electronic reporting that
involve several states, and we are actively seeking input from all
states willing to participate in such projects with EPA. The current
ERT was designed to accept data and information that is typically
collected
[[Page 14265]]
during a performance test. Some air agencies have begun accepting the
ERT as their reporting mechanism, and with experience, we believe
acceptance by other air agencies will increase. CEDRI, the portal
through which this data is submitted to CDX, includes the ability for
states to interact with submitted ERT files directly, immediately after
electronic submission. During the first phase in the development of
CEDRI, we initiated a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional Integrated
Project Team (IPT) consisting of EPA personnel from various offices and
representatives from air agencies. The objectives of the CEDRI IPT were
to gain insight and ideas regarding the data flow process within the
CEDRI. States have the ability to access files in CEDRI as soon as they
are submitted and can review these documents from anywhere that has
Internet access. While in some instances air agencies may still want a
hard copy of a test report, the ERT can generate a printed test report
or export the report to a word processor for reformatting. This report
can be generated by an air agency with an ERT they have opened, or
generated by a regulated entity and submitted to the air agency as an
emissions test report.
The EPA believes that electronic reporting is a more efficient way
to collect test data and has set up a retrieval system such that air
agencies can access files that have been submitted using the ERT. As
more air agencies adopt electronic reporting, we believe that the need
for paper reports will diminish. The EPA is also developing a web-based
ERT and has plans to release an extensible markup language (XML) schema
that could be used by third parties to develop customized reporting
software that meets the EPA's reporting requirements. The EPA expects
these additional reporting options will provide a more robust and user
friendly reporting process in the future.
ii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
Comment: One commenter states that the OEL provisions are
``equipment standards,'' and compliance is determined by whether a cap,
blind flange, plug or second valve is physically installed, and the
term ``sealed'' historically has meant one of these devices is present.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA's intent
has always been that caps, blind flanges, plugs or second valves that
are installed on OELs provide a seal, i.e., no detectable emissions.
This is further supported by examples of compliance audits conducted by
the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and EPA
Regional enforcement personnel in which companies were cited for OELs
not being sealed. We have placed these audits in the docket for this
action.
Comment: Two commenters believe the EPA must show that imposing a
new emissions limit for OELs is justified according to the criteria of
CAA section 112(d)(6), including the technical feasibility, potential
emission reductions and cost effectiveness. The commenters state that
the EPA failed to provide new data or rationale showing that the
definition of ``seal'' is needed for compliance assurance or to relieve
regulatory uncertainty, relying only on enforcement inspections
referenced in the 2007 40 CFR part 61, subpart VV rulemaking in which
monitoring OELs was determined to not be cost effective and was not the
best demonstrated technology (BDT). Another commenter states that the
EPA did not provide any data specific to the OSWRO source category for
OELs, and the data that were provided did not include the concentration
detected, whether the measurements were for HAP or VOCs, or what
standardization chemicals were used. One commenter states that the
existence of leaks from OELs is low and notes that while the EPA did
not request information to support monitoring of OELs, the commenter
referred to a monitoring study its member performed for OELs showing
that less than 1 percent of OELs were leaking at rates of 500 ppm or
greater. Another commenter states that the EPA's proposed definition
for a ``seal'' is actually a new loophole that would exempt leaks from
OELs below 500 ppm from the standards. The commenter contends this
definition is another type of exemption similar to the SSM exemption
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
found unlawful, and the EPA should not finalize the definition as
proposed.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we are
imposing a new emissions limit for OELs. As discussed in the preamble
for the proposed rule and summarized above, the existing OSWRO NESHAP
already requires the open end of OELs to be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve that shall ``seal the open end.'' In
response to compliance uncertainty for owners and operators, we are
amending 40 CFR 63.691(b) to clarify that, for the purpose of complying
with the requirements of subpart H or subpart V, as applicable,\9\ OELs
are ``sealed'' by the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when
instrument monitoring of the OEL conducted according to Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
This is consistent with how we have interpreted the term ``seal''
during inspections and, contrary to the commenters' assertions, is not
a new requirement. As demonstrated by the data provided in the docket
and the commenter's data showing that about 1 percent of all OELs are
leaking, OELs are not uniformly operating in a ``sealed'' manner by
keeping emissions below the 500 ppm threshold. The commenters have not
identified a reason to conclude that the OEL data provided in the
docket are not representative of the OSWRO source category. With this
clarification, the EPA is removing any ambiguity regarding what
constitutes a ``sealed'' OEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As discussed in sections III.A, III.B, IV.A and IV.B of this
preamble, we are removing the option from subpart DD to comply with
40 CFR part 61, subpart V for equipment leaks and are requiring
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The compliance date for
existing sources is 1 year from the effective date of the final
amendments, and new sources must comply immediately upon the
effective date of the final amendments, or upon startup, whichever
is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter that clarifying the
meaning of ``seal'' creates a new loophole for OELs. As discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule and elsewhere in this document, we
are clarifying an existing requirement that OELs be sealed.
iii. PRDs
Comment: Several commenters state or suggest that PRDs are safety
devices, and these requirements will ask plant operators to choose
between safety and committing a violation. Two of these commenters
claim that this position is in direct contrast to the General Duty
provisions, which state that, ``at all times, the owner or operator
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions . . .'' Two other commenters state that the
proposed rule would require that PRD emissions be vented to a control
device, which could reduce the effectiveness of PRD by not allowing
over-pressure from the tank or process unit to vent quickly enough to
prevent damage. One commenter asserts that an OSHA Process Safety
Management Review would indicate that venting a PRD to a control device
would create an unacceptable risk. Further, one commenter argues that
the requirements will assign the same level
[[Page 14266]]
of importance to minor releases as to significant releases that require
immediate attention, which will divert resources from critical safety
tasks.
One commenter states that the proposed PRD monitoring requirements
will predetermine the imposition of systems that safety experts may
deem unnecessary, and the placement of such systems, including
monitoring, should rather be determined during a process hazards
analysis, which is specific to each situation and is implemented for
the explicit purpose of protecting life and property. Another commenter
also argues that process safety professionals should make risk-based
decisions, and asserts that the proposed requirements do not recognize
the variations that exist between different types of systems and that
choices must be made for each individual system considering site
conditions. The commenter asserts that the management requirements for
PRDs should have a wide variety of options depending on the character
of the discharge. The commenter states that the industry's success in
preventing accidents has lead the EPA to wrongly assume that it is easy
to anticipate and prevent all circumstances that may cause an over-
pressurization event.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we are forcing
plant operators to choose between safety and committing a violation. We
recognize that industry has stated that they believe releases from PRDs
sometimes occur in order to protect systems from failures that could
endanger worker safety and the systems that the PRDs are designed to
protect. The PRD requirements were established with the recognition
that emission releases to the atmosphere from these devices occur only
in the event of unplanned and unpredictable events. When PRD releases
are due to malfunctions, the EPA would determine an appropriate
response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the
source to minimize emissions, including preventative and corrective
actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. This approach is consistent with the General Duty provisions
and is designed to minimize emissions while recognizing that these
events may be unavoidable even in a well-designed and maintained
system.
We disagree with the comment that minor releases will divert
attention and resources away from critical safety tasks. These releases
are associated with malfunction events that would require immediate
corrective action and have the potential to emit large quantities of
HAP. In addition, while the owner or operator must follow the PRD
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for each release to the
atmosphere, these tasks can be completed after the release has occurred
and should not interfere with any actions needed to ensure process and
system safety. Further, we note that the rule does not require PRDs to
be vented to control devices, as suggested by a commenter; however, a
facility owner or operator may choose to vent PRDs to control devices.
We also note that the commenters did not provide data or information in
support of their speculation that venting a PRD to a control device
would reduce the effectiveness of the PRD or that a safety hazard would
be created.
Regarding the comments that the PRD monitoring requirements will
dictate the types of systems used at facilities, we note that, as
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the requirements for PRD
monitoring provide a wide latitude in the type of monitoring system
used, which may be chosen by the facility owner or operator, providing
that the basic requirements for the system are met.
Comment: Several commenters state that the EPA added the PRD
requirements without regard to the CAA section 112 MACT development
process and without providing the legal justification, adequate record
basis or technical justification. Two of these commenters add that they
do not believe that the EPA has a legal obligation nor the discretion
to promulgate the proposed PRD provisions because the PRD monitoring
and reporting requirements were not derived from the technology
reviews, in response to any residual risks detected, or the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's
invalidation of the SSM provisions in the 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions. Two commenters suggest that these revisions should be
evaluated as part of the technology review, and the EPA should analyze
the technical feasibility, potential emissions reductions and cost
effectiveness of the revisions.
Several commenters argue that the EPA provided no data to support
the claim that a large number of releases occur and may emit large
quantities of HAP, or to support the contention that releases are not
being identified. One commenter asserts that PRD releases are rare, and
that the EPA's data from PRD episodes at California South Coast
refineries, which resulted in large emissions, does not apply to
chemical operations. Another commenter notes that at its facility, PRD
releases are infrequent events that last for 1 or 2 seconds and states
that the proposed PRD provisions are not warranted. One commenter
states that the industry already quantifies and reports releases
through the use of pressure monitoring and other types of process
controls that are also implemented to maintain stable operation. The
commenter asserts that the EPA is establishing a numeric standard of
zero that is based on the premise that most relief devices do not
release, which fails to acknowledge the differences between systems.
Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate
technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts),
and such standards must contain compliance assurance provisions to make
sure that they are practicably enforceable. Nothing in the CAA or its
legislative history suggests that the EPA is prohibited from reviewing
and revising MACT standards and their compliance assurance provisions,
except as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f)
reviews or an action taken in response to a ruling by a Court. The
amendments being finalized for PRD releases do not impose new emission
standards for which a MACT analysis is required by the CAA. Instead,
they prohibit releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in off-site material
service that are not appropriate for exemption from emission standards
following the 2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, and impose additional
monitoring requirements to address potential releases.
In light of, and consistent with, the Sierra Club v. EPA ruling,
the EPA is eliminating the SSM exemption in the OSWRO MACT standards
and requiring that the standards apply at all times, including during
periods of SSM. In addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-
caused pressure releases to the atmosphere to conform with the
reasoning of the Court's ruling, the final rule adds a provision
stating that releases of HAP listed in Table 1 of subpart DD directly
to the atmosphere from PRDs in off-site material service are
prohibited. To prohibit these malfunction-caused releases, it is not
necessary for us to set an emission standard that is based on a MACT
floor or beyond-the-floor analysis; indeed, the EPA has consistently
explained that we are not required to take malfunctions into account in
setting standards or to devise standards that apply specifically to
malfunction-caused emissions, such as PRD releases that cause HAP
emissions only during malfunctions. The final rule requires that
sources
[[Page 14267]]
monitor PRDs using a system that is capable of detecting and recording
the time and duration of each pressure release, and the final rule
provides owners and operators flexibility to either install a monitor
on the PRD or to use equipment and operations they already have in
place if they are sufficient to detect and indicate pressure releases
to the atmosphere. The rule also establishes requirements that these
release indicators be capable of immediately notifying operators that a
release is occurring, so that HAP emissions from these releases can be
mitigated as soon as possible. Additionally, the final rule requires
reporting of PRD releases to the atmosphere to ensure that these
releases will be reported nationally.
Contrary to some commenters' assertions that the EPA did not
provide data to support the claim that a large number of PRD releases
occur and may emit large quantities of HAP, a report by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) containing such data was
referenced and made available with the proposed rule in the memorandum,
Cost Impacts of Pressure Relief Device Monitoring for the Off-site
Waste and Recovery Operations Source Category, available in the docket
for this action. The referenced report shows that releases from PRDs
occur randomly and the emissions can only be approximated, but that
large quantities of emissions may be released. Based on the SCAQMD
analysis of refinery PRD reports of PRD releases from nine facilities
in its district, there were eight PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that
were estimated to release greater than 2,000 lbs of emissions to the
atmosphere, and eight PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that were
estimated to release between 500 and 2,000 lbs of emissions to the
atmosphere. The SCAQMD analysis focuses on VOC emissions (which would
include organic HAP emissions) from refineries and marine terminals,
and information provided by the commenter also suggests the SCAQMD
analysis results are similar to results from another analysis for PRDs
at chemical production facilities.\10\ Additionally, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality Emission Event Reporting Database
is populated with Emission Event Reports from both the refinery and
chemical sectors where the reason for the report was due to a PRD
release. This database also shows that PRD releases do occur and that
the quantity of emissions varies and can be large. While there may be
differences in PRD systems and emissions, we continue to believe the
requirements proposed and being finalized for the OSWRO NESHAP in this
action are necessary to address the otherwise unregulated HAP emissions
releases from PRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The commenter stated that ``DuPont experience is that PRD
releases are rare; DuPont has provided data through ACC to EPA.''
ACC's comments referred to a study submitted with its comments for
another rulemaking. We located and reviewed this study, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-0041, in which the data provided
by DuPont is summarized with other data supplied by ACC member
companies. Both the data provided by ACC and the SCAQMD showed just
over 1 percent of the PRDs had a release. The data provided by ACC
showed over 20 percent of PRD releases were over 500 pounds and the
SCAQMD data showed that approximately 38 percent of the PRD releases
were over 500 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters suggest certain types of PRDs should be
excluded from the PRD requirements because they have a low potential to
emit large quantities of HAP. These commenters specifically state that
PRDs in liquid service should be excluded from these requirements. For
PRDs with little potential for loss to the atmosphere, the commenters
suggest that the EPA set a reporting threshold value equal to the
reportable quantity (RQ) values in Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and/or Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). One commenter asserts that
the PRD provisions should exclude PRDs in less than 5-percent VOHAP
service. The commenter also suggests that the OSWRO MACT should refer
to Table 9 of subpart G (VOHAPs) instead of Table 1 of subpart DD,
should exclude ethylene glycol from Table 1 of subpart DD, or should
exclude heavy liquids from the definition of a PRD.
This commenter states that the exclusion for PRDs discharged to a
drain system that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.689 is not
useful, and states that the EPA provides no cost justification or
assessment of potential emission reductions of this alternative
requirement. The commenter asserts that hard-piping discharge to a
closed sewer system is neither feasible nor safe in many situations,
and suggests that the EPA require only that liquids be sent for on-site
or off-site treatment, which would be consistent with the Chemical
Manufacturing Area Source standard (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV).
This commenter and another commenter state that, to be consistent with
the HON, PRDs that are routed to a fuel gas system should be exempted
in 40 CFR 63.691(c)(4).
Response: We generally do not agree with the commenters'
suggestions to add an exclusion from the PRD requirements for PRDs that
emit smaller amounts of HAP. Regarding PRDs in liquid service,
equipment is in liquid service when it contains or contacts off-site
material that is liquid at operating conditions, and for processes that
are under pressure, the liquid may escape as a gas or vapor when
released to the atmosphere. For these reasons, we continue to believe
PRDs in liquid service, as well as those in gas/vapor service, should
be subject to the PRD requirements. We note that the OSWRO NESHAP
provides that only PRDs that contain or contact off-site material
having a total HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent by
weight and that are intended to operate for 300 hours or more during a
calendar year in off-site material service are subject to these
requirements (see 40 CFR 63.680(c)(3)). We also disagree with the
suggestion that the OSWRO MACT refer to Table 9 of subpart G rather
than Table 1 of subpart DD for HAPs regulated by the PRD provisions.
All of the provisions of the OSWRO NESHAP apply to the chemicals listed
in Table 1 of subpart DD, and we do not find that an exception should
be made for PRDs to exclude any chemicals with relatively lower
volatility from these requirements.
We disagree with the commenter that the provisions that exclude
PRDs that are routed to a drain system meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 63.689 from the PRD release and monitoring requirements is an
alternate requirement. This provision acknowledges that such equipment
would not have uncontrolled HAP emission releases directly to the
atmosphere, and therefore the PRD release management and monitoring
provisions should not apply, but it does not require that any equipment
be routed to such a drain system. We also note that the chemical
manufacturing area source standard does not have pressure release
management or monitoring requirements, and the standards in that rule
are not applicable to the OSWRO NESHAP. The EPA agrees with commenters'
suggestion to exclude PRDs that release to a fuel gas system from the
PRD monitoring provisions, and we have revised the final rule to
reflect this change.
Comment: One commenter requests that the EPA clarify the meaning of
PRDs in light liquid versus gas/vapor service. The commenter notes that
most facilities subject to the OSWRO MACT operate fixed roof storage
tanks that must be operated with a void space at
[[Page 14268]]
the top that consists of vapors from the tank and may also include a
nitrogen blanket. The commenter asserts that the determination of the
service type should be based on the contents of the tank (i.e., liquid)
and not the location where the PRD is installed, which will always be
at the top of the tank in contact with vapors in the void space. The
commenter asserts that if these types of tanks are considered to be in
gas/vapor service, then there can be no PRDs on fixed roof tanks that
operate in liquid service.
Response: The OSWRO NESHAP directs facility owners/operators to
comply with the equipment leak requirements of the HON, which contains
different requirements for various components depending upon the type
of fluid (whether gas or liquid) that flows through (e.g., contains or
contacts) the components. The basis for these different requirements is
data collected from petroleum refineries, which indicate that emission
rates of equipment leak sources decrease as the vapor pressure
(volatility) of the process fluid decreases. For the HON, three classes
of volatility were established based on the petroleum refinery data and
the potential for emissions through equipment leaks; these include gas/
vapor service, light-liquid service and heavy-liquid service. The
proposed OSWRO definition stated that in gas/vapor service means that a
piece of equipment in off-site material service contains a gas or vapor
at operating conditions. To clarify our intent and avoid any confusion
as to whether PRDs with a flow of gas or vapor through the device are
``in gas/vapor service,'' we are revising the definition to state that
in gas/vapor service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service contains or contacts a gas or vapor at operating
conditions. With this revision, it should be clear that a PRD in off-
site material service on the roof of a tank containing liquid, but
which only contacts gas/vapor itself and does not contact liquid, would
be in gas/vapor service. For consistency, we also are revising the
definition of ``in light liquid service'' to include equipment that
contains or contacts liquid.
Comment: One commenter states that the EPA revised the Tank Level 1
control requirements in 40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(i) and (iii)(B) to preclude
routine venting of PRD by excluding 40 CFR 63.902(c)(2) and (3);
however, the commenter notes that this revision would also preclude the
operation of conservation vents on Level 1 tanks. The commenter
suggests that the EPA remove the exclusion or amend the provision to
allow for the operation of conservation vents.
Response: We agree that conservation vents should be allowed to
operate on Level 1 tanks, and, while we do not believe these would meet
the definition of a PRD, we have revised the text of the final rule at
40 CFR 63.684(c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) to clarify that the use of these devices
is permitted.
iv. Other Comments
Comment: One commenter states that the EPA should provide an
exemption in 40 CFR 63.693(b)(9) to the performance testing or design
evaluation requirements for combustion devices if a unit has been
issued a final or interim status RCRA permit, since performance tests
are required to obtain such a permit.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the combustion
units required to obtain a RCRA permit would have conducted performance
tests under those provisions which satisfy the performance test
requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP and that separate or additional
performance testing would not be necessary. We have therefore added a
provision to the final rule that excludes combustion devices that have
been issued a RCRA permit from the OSWRO NESHAP performance test
requirements.
Comment: One commenter states that the OSWRO provisions should more
clearly indicate that facilities subject to onsite wastewater
provisions under other CAA MACT regulations should not also be required
to comply with the OSWRO NESHAP. The commenter references the
applicability provisions that exclude certain types of waste subject to
other MACT rules in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v), and states that the
exclusion is limited to SOCMI. The commenter suggests removing
paragraphs 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B) to broaden the exclusion
to wastewater sources subject to any other subpart in 40 CFR part 63.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the exclusion of
certain types of waste in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v) should not be limited
to SOCMI and has revised the regulatory text to exempt waste that is
transferred from a facility at which management of the waste has
complied with the air emission control standards for process wastewater
specified by another subpart in 40 CFR part 63.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other
changes to the OSWRO NESHAP?
For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed
rule, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic
reporting; routine maintenance; OELs; safety devices, pressure tanks,
bypasses and PRDs; performance test method clarifications and
alternative methods; and other clarifications and corrections.
For the reasons provided above, we are making the revisions,
clarifications and corrections noted in section IV.D.2 in the final
rule.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that there are 56 major source OSWRO facilities. Based
on available permit information, seven facilities are known to be
exempt from most of the rule requirements due to the low HAP content of
the off-site waste they receive or because they comply instead with 40
CFR part 61, subpart FF, as allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP, and they are
not expected to be affected by the final rule revisions. These
facilities are only required to document that the total annual quantity
of the HAP contained in the off-site material received at the plant
site is less than 1 megagram per year, and they are not subject to any
other emissions limits or monitoring, reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. We are not aware of any new OSWRO facilities that are
expected to be constructed in the foreseeable future.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and requiring facilities in the OSWRO
source category to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, including
connector monitoring. Our revised estimate of the HAP emission
reduction for this change is approximately 185 tpy.
For tanks, we are finalizing requirements for tanks of certain
sizes and containing materials above certain vapor pressures to use
Level 2 controls. Our revised estimate of the HAP emission reduction
for this change is approximately 26 tpy.
We do not anticipate any HAP emission reduction from our
clarification of the rule provision ``seal the open end'' (in the
context of OELs), clarification of the scope of the routine maintenance
provisions, or requirement to electronically report the results of
emissions testing.
For the revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM, including
monitoring of PRDs in off-site material service, we were not able to
quantify the
[[Page 14269]]
possible emission reductions, so none are included in our assessment of
air quality impacts.
Therefore, the estimated total HAP emission reductions for the
final standards for the OSWRO source category are estimated to be 211
tpy.
C. What are the cost impacts?
For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and requiring facilities in the OSWRO
source category to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H (including
connector monitoring). We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be
$2.1 million and the annualized costs to be $664,000.
For tanks, we are requiring tanks of certain sizes and containing
materials above certain vapor pressures to use Level 2 controls. We
estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $139,000 and the annualized
costs to be $192,000.
We do not anticipate any quantifiable capital or annualized costs
for our definition of ``seal'' (in the context of OELs), clarification
of the scope of the routine maintenance provisions and requirement to
electronically report the results of emissions testing.
For the requirement to install and operate monitors on PRDs, we
estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $1.9 million and the
annualized costs to be $270,000. Therefore, the total capital costs for
the final amendments for the OSWRO source category are approximately
$4.1 million and the total annualized costs are approximately $1.1
million.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with a
regulation and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to that regulation. Total annualized costs for the final
amendments are estimated to be about $1.1 million. The average
annualized cost per facility is estimated to be about $23,000. Without
detailed industry data, it is not possible to conduct a complete
quantitative analysis of economic impacts. However, prior analyses
suggest the impacts of these final amendments will be minimal. The
Economic Impact Analysis for the final OSWRO NESHAP \11\ found that
demand for off-site waste services was highly inelastic. This means
that suppliers are predominantly able to pass along cost increases to
consumers through higher prices with little, if any, decrease in the
quantity of service demanded. While we do not have specific information
on prices charged or the quantity of services provided, company
revenues are a function of both these factors. The cost-to-sales ratio
is less than 1 quarter of 1 percent for all of the 27 firms included in
this analysis, suggesting any increase in price will be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA. June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What are the benefits?
We have estimated that this action will achieve HAP emissions
reduction of 211 tpy. The final standards will result in significant
reductions in the actual and MACT-allowable emissions of HAP and will
reduce the actual and potential cancer risks and non-cancer health
effects due to emissions of HAP from this source category, as discussed
in the proposal preamble (79 FR 37869-37870). We have not quantified
the monetary benefits associated with these reductions; however, these
avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and
reduced negative health effects associate with exposure to air
pollution of these emissions.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in
the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the
integration of environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking
efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and conduct of
analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during
the development of a rule.
Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of
the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a
proximity analysis for OSWRO facilities prior to proposal to identify
any overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous
populations. This analysis gives an indication of the prevalence of
sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources.
We have revised this analysis to include four additional OSWRO
facilities that the EPA learned about after proposal.
The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations.
Additionally, the final changes to the NESHAP increase the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing
emissions from equipment leaks and tanks and do not cause any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority, low income or
indigenous populations. Further details concerning this analysis are
presented in the memorandum titled, Updated Environmental Justice
Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations RTR, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this action.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
As part of the health and risk assessments, as well as the
proximity analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and
children were assessed. These analyses are documented in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations Source
Category in Support of the February 2015 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule and the Updated Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations RTR documents and are available in the docket
for this action.
The results of the proximity analysis show that the average
percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to OSWRO
is similar to the percentage of the national population in this age
group. The difference in the absolute number of percentage points of
the population 17 years old and younger from the national average
indicates a 7-percent over-representation near OSWRO facilities.
Consistent with the EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to
Children, we conducted inhalation and multipathway risk assessments for
the OSWRO source category considering risk to infants and children.\12\
Children are exposed to chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via two
primary routes: Either directly via inhalation, or indirectly via
ingestion or dermal contact with various media that have been
contaminated with the emitted chemicals. The EPA considers the
possibility that children might be more sensitive than adults to toxic
chemicals, including chemical carcinogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our inhalation risk assessment, several carcinogens emitted by
facilities in this source category have a mutagenic mode of action. For
these compounds,
[[Page 14270]]
we applied the age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) described in the
EPA's Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-
Life Exposure to Carcinogens.\13\ This adjustment has the effect of
increasing the estimated lifetime risks for these pollutants by a
factor of 1.6. For one group of these chemicals with a mutagenic mode
of action, POM, only a small fraction of the total emissions were
reported as individual compounds. The EPA expresses carcinogenic
potency of POM relative to the carcinogenic potency of benzo[a]pyrene,
based on evidence that carcinogenic POM have the same mutagenic mode of
action as does benzo[a]pyrene. The EPA's Science Policy Council
recommends applying the ADAF to all carcinogenic compounds for which
risk estimates are based on potency relative to benzo[a]pyrene.
Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene-equivalent
mass portion of all POM mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from
Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-03/003F.
March 2005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our multipathway screening assessment (i.e., ingestion), we
assessed risks for adults and various age groups of children.
Childrens' exposures are expected to differ from exposures of adults
due to differences in body weights, ingestion rates, dietary
preferences and other factors. It is important, therefore, to evaluate
the contribution of exposures during childhood to total lifetime risk
using appropriate exposure factor values, applying ADAF as appropriate.
The EPA developed a health protective exposure scenario whereby the
receptor, at various lifestages, receives ingestion exposure via both
the farm food chain and the fish ingestion pathways. The analysis
revealed that fish ingestion is the dominant exposure pathway across
all age groups for several pollutants, including POM. For POM, the
farm-food-chain also is a major route of exposure, with beef and dairy
contributing significantly to the lifetime average daily dose.
Preliminary calculations of estimated dermal exposure and risk from
these pollutants showed that the dermal exposure route is not a
significant risk pathway relative to ingestion exposures.
Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that
the changes to this rule, which will reduce emissions of HAP by over
200 tpy, will lead to reduced risk to children and infants.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1717.11. 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 information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
notifications, reports and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Respondents/affected entities: OSWRO facilities that store, treat,
recycle, reprocess, or dispose of wastes containing organic chemical
compounds.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
Estimated number of respondents: 49.
Frequency of response: Semiannual.
Total estimated burden: 49,118 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $4.1 million (per year), includes $1.2
million annualized capital or operation & 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. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are
businesses that can be classified as small firms using the SBA size
standards for their respective industries. The agency has determined
that of the 27 firms that own the 49 facilities in the OSWRO source
category, four firms, or 15 percent, can be classified as small firms.
Based on the sales test screening methodology, all four firms will
experience minimal impact, or a cost-to-sales ratio of 1 percent or
less. Details of this analysis are presented in the memo, Economic
Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Off-site Waste and
Recovery Operations Source Category, which is available in the docket
for this action.
D. 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 on
the private sector.
E. 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. There are no OSWRO facilities that are owned or
operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
[[Page 14271]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the: Residual Risk Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations Source Category in Support of the February 2015 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule document, which is available in the docket
for this action, and are discussed in section V.G of this preamble.
H. 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
add EPA Methods 2F and 2G to the list of methods allowed to determine
process vent stream gas volumetric flow rate. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) were identified for these methods. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing provisions to allow EPA Method 3A as an
alternative to EPA Method 3B for determining the oxygen concentration
to use in oxygen correction equations. While the EPA identified several
candidate VCS for this method (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASME
B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-
95 (2013), ASTM D6522-00 (2011), and CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999)) as
being potentially applicable, the agency decided not to use them. The
use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy
considerations. The EPA also is finalizing requirements to use EPA
Method 25A to determine compliance with the control device percent
reduction requirement, if the owner or operator chooses to measure
total organic content. While the EPA identified two candidate VCS (ISO
14965:2000(E), EN 12619 (1999)) as being potentially applicable, we are
not including either standard in this final rule. The use of these VCS
would not be practical due to the limited measurement ranges of these
methods. (For more detail, see the document titled, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for NESHAP: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 40
CFR part 63, subpart DD in the docket for this final rule.) The EPA
solicited comments on VCS and invited the public to identify
potentially-applicable VCS, but no comments were received regarding
this aspect of the rule.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it increases the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment. The results of this
evaluation are contained in the memorandum titled, Updated
Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
RTR, which is available in the docket for this action, and are
discussed in section V.F of this preamble.
K. 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 26, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is amending title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 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 DD--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FROM OFF-SITE WASTE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS
0
2. Section 63.680 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v) introductory text and (e)(1) and (2);
and
0
b. Adding paragraph (g).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.680 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Waste that is transferred from a chemical manufacturing plant
or other facility for which the owner or operator of the facility from
which the waste is transferred has complied with the provisions of the
air emission control standards for process wastewater specified by
another subpart of this part. This exemption does not apply to a source
which complies with another subpart of this part by transferring its
wastewater off-site for control.
* * * * *
(e) * * * (1) Existing sources. The owner or operator of an
affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction before
October 13, 1994, must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart on or before the date specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii),
or (iii) of this section as applicable to the affected source.
(i) For an affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before October 13, 1994 and receives off-site material
for the first time before February 1, 2000, the owner or operator of
this affected source must achieve compliance with the provisions of the
subpart (except Sec. Sec. 63.685(b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b)(2), and
63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) on or before February 1, 2000 unless an
extension has been granted by the Administrator as provided in Sec.
63.6(i). These existing affected sources shall be in compliance with
the tank requirements of Sec. 63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015, the
equipment leak requirements of Sec. 63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015, and the
pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.691(c)(3)(i)
and (ii) 3 years after the publication date of the final amendments on
March 18, 2015.
(ii) For an affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before October 13, 1994, but receives off-site material
for the first
[[Page 14272]]
time on or after February 1, 2000, but before March 18, 2015, the owner
or operator of the affected source must achieve compliance with the
provisions of this subpart (except Sec. Sec. 63.685(b)(1)(ii),
63.691(b)(2), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) upon the first date that
the affected source begins to manage off-site material. These existing
affected sources shall be in compliance with the tank requirements of
Sec. 63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the publication date of the final
amendments on March 18, 2015, the equipment leak requirements of Sec.
63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the publication date of the final amendments
on March 18, 2015, and the pressure relief device monitoring
requirements of Sec. 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015.
(iii) For an affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction before October 13, 1994, but receives off-site material
for the first time on or after March 18, 2015, the owner or operator of
the affected source must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart (except Sec. Sec. 63.685 (b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b)(2), and
63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) upon the first date that the affected source
begins to manage off-site material. These existing affected sources
shall be in compliance with the tank requirements of Sec.
63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the publication date of the final
amendments on March 18, 2015, the equipment leak requirements of Sec.
63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the publication date of the final amendments
on March 18, 2015, and the pressure relief device monitoring
requirements of Sec. 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the
publication date of the final amendments on March 18, 2015.
(2) New sources. The owner or operator of an affected source for
which construction or reconstruction commences on or after October 13,
1994, must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart
(except Sec. Sec. 63.685(b)(2), 63.691(b)(2), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and
(ii)) on or before July 1, 1996, or upon initial startup of operations,
whichever date is later as provided in 40 CFR 63.6(b). New affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 13,
1994, but on or before July 2, 2014, shall be in compliance with the
tank requirements of Sec. 63.685(b)(2) 2 years after the publication
date of the final amendments, the equipment leak requirements of Sec.
63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the publication date of the final amendments,
and the pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.
63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the effective date of the final
amendments. New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after July 2, 2014, shall be in compliance with the tank
requirements of Sec. 63.685(b)(2), the equipment leak requirements of
Sec. 63.691(b)(2), and the pressure relief device monitoring
requirements of Sec. 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) upon initial startup or
by the effective date of the final amendments, whichever is later.
* * * * *
(g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
(2) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment, if
the shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable
to such items of equipment.
0
3. Section 63.681 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Bypass'', ``In gas/
vapor service'', ``In heavy liquid service'', ``In light liquid
service'', ``In liquid service'', ``Pressure release'', and ``Pressure
relief device or valve'';
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``Point-of-treatment'' and ``Process
vent''; and
0
c. Removing the definition of ``Safety device''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.681 Definitions.
* * * * *
Bypass means diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream
to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission
control device.
* * * * *
In gas/vapor service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service contains or contacts a gas or vapor at operating
conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service is not in gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service.
In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in off-site
material service contains or contacts a liquid that meets the following
conditions:
(1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic compounds is
greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 [deg]C;
(2) The total concentration of the pure organic compounds
constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20
[deg]C is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total
process stream; and
(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions. Note to In light
liquid service: Vapor pressures may be determined by the methods
described in 40 CFR 60.485(e)(1). In liquid service means that a piece
of equipment in off-site material service is not in gas/vapor service.
* * * * *
Point-of-treatment means a point after the treated material exits
the treatment process but before the first point downstream of the
treatment process exit where the organic constituents in the treated
material have the potential to volatilize and be released to the
atmosphere. For the purpose of applying this definition to this
subpart, the first point downstream of the treatment process exit is
not a fugitive emission point due to an equipment leak from any of the
following equipment components: Pumps, compressors, valves, connectors,
instrumentation systems, or pressure relief devices.
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period.
Pressure relief device or valve means a safety device used to
prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process equipment. A common pressure relief
device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Devices that are
actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per
square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
Process vent means an open-ended pipe, stack, or duct through which
a gas stream containing HAP is continuously or intermittently
discharged to the atmosphere from any of the processes listed in Sec.
63.680(c)(2)(i) through (vi). For the purpose of this subpart, a
process vent is none of the following: a pressure relief device; an
open-ended line or other vent that is subject to the equipment leak
control requirements under Sec. 63.691; or a stack or other vent that
is used to exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, process
heater, incinerator, or other combustion device.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.683 is amended by:
[[Page 14273]]
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.683 Standards: General.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator determines before placing off-site
material in the process equipment associated with the process vent that
the average VOHAP concentration of the off-site material is less than
500 ppmw at the point-of-delivery. * * *
* * * * *
(e) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
(f) In addition to the cases listed in Sec. 63.695(e)(4),
deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(6) of this section.
(1) Any instance in which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any
requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but
not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit or work practice
standard.
(2) When a performance test indicates that emissions of a pollutant
in Table 1 to this subpart are exceeding the emission standard for the
pollutant specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
(3) When the average value of a monitored operating parameter,
based on the data averaging period for compliance specified in Sec.
63.695, does not meet the operating limit specified in Sec. 63.693.
(4) When an affected source discharges directly into the atmosphere
from any of the sources specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) A pressure relief device, as defined in Sec. 63.681.
(ii) A bypass, as defined in Sec. 63.681.
(5) Any instance in which the affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any
term or condition specified in paragraph (f)(5)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) Any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart.
(ii) Any term or condition relating to compliance with this subpart
that is included in the operating permit for an affected source to
obtain such a permit.
(6) Any failure to collect required data, except for periods of
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
0
5. Section 63.684 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(5) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(5)(v); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.684 Standards: Off-site material treatment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Incineration. The treatment process must destroy the HAP
contained in the off-site material stream using one of the combustion
devices specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(v) An incinerator, boiler, or industrial furnace for which the
owner or operator has submitted a Notification of Compliance under
Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) and complies with the requirements
of subpart EEE of this part at all times (including times when non-
hazardous waste is being burned).
* * * * *
(h) The Administrator may at any time conduct or require that the
owner or operator conduct testing necessary to demonstrate that a
treatment process is achieving the applicable performance requirements
of this section. The testing shall be conducted in accordance with the
applicable requirements of this section. The Administrator may elect to
have an authorized representative observe testing conducted by the
owner or operator.
0
6. Section 63.685 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), and (2);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(i) and (iii)(B), (g)(2), (h)(3),
(i) introductory text; and
0
d. Removing paragraph (i)(3) and redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as
paragraph (i)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.685 Standards: Tanks.
* * * * *
(b) According to the date an affected source commenced construction
or reconstruction and the date an affected source receives off-site
material for the first time as established in Sec. 63.680(e)(i)
through (iii), the owner or operator shall control air emissions from
each tank subject to this section in accordance with either paragraph
(b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(1)(i) For a tank that is part of an existing affected source but
the tank is not used for a waste stabilization process as defined in
Sec. 63.681, the owner or operator shall determine whether the tank is
required to use either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank Level 2 controls
as specified for the tank by Table 3 of this subpart based on the off-
site material maximum HAP vapor pressure and the tank's design
capacity. The owner or operator shall control air emissions from a tank
required by Table 3 to use Tank Level 1 controls in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. The owner or operator
shall control air emissions from a tank required by Table 3 to use Tank
Level 2 controls in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)
of this section.
(ii) For a tank that is part of an existing affected source but the
tank is not used for a waste stabilization process as defined in Sec.
63.681, the owner or operator shall determine whether the tank is
required to use either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank Level 2 controls
as specified for the tank by Table 4 of this subpart based on the off-
site material maximum HAP vapor pressure and the tank's design
capacity. The owner or operator shall control air emissions from a tank
required by Table 4 to use Tank Level 1 controls in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. The owner or operator
shall control air emissions from a tank required by Table 4 to use Tank
Level 2 controls in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)
of this section.
(2) For a tank that is part of a new affected source but the tank
is not used for a waste stabilization process as defined in Sec.
63.681, the owner or operator shall determine whether the tank is
required to use either Tank Level
[[Page 14274]]
1 controls or Tank Level 2 controls as specified for the tank by Table
5 of this subpart based on the off-site material maximum HAP vapor
pressure and the tank's design capacity. The owner or operator shall
control air emissions from a tank required by Table 5 to use Tank Level
1 controls in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section. The owner or operator shall control air emissions from a tank
required by Table 5 to use Tank Level 2 controls in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The owner or operator shall determine the maximum HAP vapor
pressure for an off-site material to be managed in the tank using Tank
Level 1 controls before the first time the off-site material is placed
in the tank. The maximum HAP vapor pressure shall be determined using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.694(j). Thereafter, the owner or
operator shall perform a new determination whenever changes to the off-
site material managed in the tank could potentially cause the maximum
HAP vapor pressure to increase to a level that is equal to or greater
than the maximum HAP vapor pressure limit for the tank design capacity
category specified in Table 3, Table 4, or Table 5 of this subpart, as
applicable to the tank.
(2) * * *
(i) The owner or operator controls air emissions from the tank in
accordance with the provisions specified in subpart OO of this part--
National Emission Standards for Tanks--Level 1, except that Sec.
63.902(c)(2) and (3) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) At all other times, air emissions from the tank must be
controlled in accordance with the provisions specified in subpart OO of
this part--National Emission Standards for Tanks--Level 1, with the
exceptions specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Where Sec. 63.902(c)(2) provides an exception for a spring-
loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type
of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere, only a
conservation vent shall be eligible for the exception for the purposes
of this subpart.
(2) Section 63.902(c)(3) shall not apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Whenever an off-site material is in the tank, the fixed roof
shall be installed with each closure device secured in the closed
position and the vapor headspace underneath the fixed roof vented to
the control device except that venting to the control device is not
required, and opening of closure devices or removal of the fixed roof
is allowed at the following times:
(i) To provide access to the tank for performing routine
inspection, maintenance, or other activities needed for normal
operations. Examples of such activities include those times when a
worker needs to open a port to sample liquid in the tank, or when a
worker needs to open a hatch to maintain or repair equipment. Following
completion of the activity, the owner or operator shall promptly secure
the closure device in the closed position or reinstall the cover, as
applicable, to the tank.
(ii) To remove accumulated sludge or other residues from the bottom
of the tank.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Whenever an off-site material is in the tank, the tank shall be
operated as a closed system that does not vent to the atmosphere except
at those times when purging of inerts from the tank is required and the
purge stream is routed to a closed-vent system and control device
designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
63.693.
(i) The owner or operator who elects to control air emissions by
using an enclosure vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed
combustion control device shall meet the requirements specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.686 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.686 Standards: Oil-water and organic water separators.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) A floating roof in accordance with all applicable provisions
specified in subpart VV of this part--National Emission Standards for
Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators, except that
Sec. Sec. 63.1043(c)(2), 63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not
apply for the purposes of this subpart. For portions of the separator
where it is infeasible to install and operate a floating roof, such as
over a weir mechanism, the owner or operator shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) A fixed-roof that is vented through a closed-vent system to a
control device in accordance with all applicable provisions specified
in subpart VV of this part--National Emission Standards for Oil-Water
Separators and Organic-Water Separators, except that Sec. Sec.
63.1043(c)(2), 63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
(3) A pressurized separator that operates as a closed system in
accordance with all applicable provisions specified in subpart VV of
this part--National Emission Standards for Oil-Water Separators and
Organic-Water Separators, except that Sec. Sec. 63.1043(c)(2),
63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
0
8. Section 63.687 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.687 Standards: Surface impoundments.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) A floating membrane cover in accordance with the applicable
provisions specified in subpart QQ of this part--National Emission
Standards for Surface Impoundments, except that Sec. Sec. 63.942(c)(2)
and (3) and 63.943(c)(2) shall not apply for the purposes of this
subpart; or
(2) A cover that is vented through a closed-vent system to a
control device in accordance with all applicable provisions specified
in subpart QQ of this part--National Emission Standards for Surface
Impoundments, except that Sec. Sec. 63.942(c)(2) and (3) and
63.943(c)(2) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
0
9. Section 63.688 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii),
and (3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.688 Standards: Containers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The owner or operator controls air emissions from the container
in accordance with the standards for Container Level 1 controls as
specified in subpart PP of this part--National Emission Standards for
Containers, except that Sec. Sec. 63.922(d)(4) and (5) and
63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(ii) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, an owner or operator may choose to control
air emissions from the container in accordance with the standards for
either Container Level 2 controls or Container Level 3 controls as
specified in subpart PP of this part--National Emission Standards for
[[Page 14275]]
Containers, except that Sec. Sec. 63.922(d)(4) and (5) and
63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The owner or operator controls air emissions from the container
in accordance with the standards for Container Level 2 controls as
specified in subpart PP of this part--National Emission Standards for
Containers, except that Sec. Sec. 63.922(d)(4) and (5) and
63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.689 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.689 Standards: Transfer systems.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Whenever an off-site material is in the transfer system, the
cover shall be installed with each closure device secured in the closed
position, except the opening of closure devices or removal of the cover
is allowed to provide access to the transfer system for performing
routine inspection, maintenance, repair, or other activities needed for
normal operations. Examples of such activities include those times when
a worker needs to open a hatch or remove the cover to repair conveyance
equipment mounted under the cover or to clear a blockage of material
inside the system. Following completion of the activity, the owner or
operator shall promptly secure the closure device in the closed
position or reinstall the cover, as applicable.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.691 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.691 Standards: Equipment leaks.
* * * * *
(b) According to the date an affected source commenced construction
or reconstruction and the date an affected source receives off-site
material for the first time, as established in Sec. 63.680(e)(i)
through (iii), the owner or operator shall control the HAP emitted from
equipment leaks in accordance with the applicable provisions specified
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1)(i) The owner or operator controls the HAP emitted from
equipment leaks in accordance with Sec. Sec. 61.241 through 61.247 in
40 CFR part 61, subpart V--National Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks, with the difference noted in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv) of
this section for the purposes of this subpart; or
(ii) The owner or operator controls the HAP emitted from equipment
leaks in accordance with Sec. Sec. 63.161 through 63.182 in subpart H
of this part--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Equipment Leaks, with the differences noted in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for the purposes of
this subpart.
(iii) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR 61.242-6(a)(2) or the requirements of Sec.
63.167(a)(2), the open end is sealed when instrument monitoring of the
open-ended valve or line conducted according to Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 ppm or greater.
(iv) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR 61.242-6(d) or the requirements of Sec.
63.167(d), open-ended valves or lines in an emergency shutdown system
which are designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset and that are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR 61.242-6(a),
(b), and (c) or Sec. 63.167(a), (b), and (c) must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.693(c)(2).
(2) The owner or operator controls the HAP emitted from equipment
leaks in accordance with Sec. Sec. 63.161 through 63.183 in subpart H
of this part--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Equipment Leaks, with the differences noted in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for the purposes of
this subpart.
(i) For each valve in gas/vapor or in light liquid service, as
defined in Sec. 63.681, that is part of an affected source under this
subpart, an instrument reading that defines a leak is 500 ppm or
greater as detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) For each pump in light liquid service, as defined in Sec.
63.681, that is part of an affected source under this subpart, an
instrument reading that defines a leak is 1,000 ppm or greater as
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Repair is not
required unless an instrument reading of 2,000 ppm or greater is
detected.
(iii) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of Sec. 63.167(a)(2), the open end is sealed when
instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or line conducted
according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no
readings of 500 ppm or greater.
(iv) On or after March 18, 2015, for the purpose of complying with
the requirements of Sec. 63.167(d), open-ended valves or lines in an
emergency shutdown system which are designed to open automatically in
the event of a process upset and that are exempt from the requirements
in Sec. 63.167(a), (b), and (c) must comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.693(c)(2).
(v) For the purposes of this subpart, the pressure relief device
requirements of Sec. 63.691(c) of this subpart rather than those of
Sec. 63.165 or of 40 CFR 61.242-4, as applicable, shall apply. The
pressure relief device requirements of Sec. 63.691(c)(3) and (4) apply
in addition to the requirements of Sec. 63.169 or of 40 CFR 61.242-8,
as applicable, for pressure relief devices in liquid service.
(c) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the owner or operator must comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section for pressure relief devices in off-site material service.
(1) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event,
operate each pressure relief device in gas/vapor service with an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as detected by
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(2) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
gas/vapor service, the owner or operator must comply with either
paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section following a pressure
release, as applicable.
(i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, the pressure relief device shall be returned to a
condition indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no
later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release device returns to
off-site material service following a pressure release, except as
provided in Sec. 63.171.
(ii) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a
rupture disk, except as provided in Sec. 63.171, install a replacement
disk as soon as practicable but no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure release.
(3) Pressure release management. Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section, emissions of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart may not be discharged directly to the atmosphere from pressure
relief devices in off-site material service, and according to the date
an affected source commenced construction or reconstruction and the
date an affected source receives off-site
[[Page 14276]]
material for the first time, as established in Sec. 63.680(e)(1)(i)
through (iii), the owner or operator must comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all
pressure relief devices in off-site material service.
(i) The owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device in
off-site material service with a device(s) or use a monitoring system.
The device or monitoring system may be either specific to the pressure
release device itself or may be associated with the process system or
piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the atmosphere.
Examples of these types of devices or monitoring systems include, but
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, pressure
monitor, or parametric monitoring system. The devices or monitoring
systems must be capable of meeting the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Identifying the pressure release;
(B) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
(C) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is
occurring.
(ii) If any pressure relief device in off-site material service
releases directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release
event, the owner or operator must calculate the quantity of HAP listed
in Table 1 of this subpart released during each pressure release event
and report this quantity as required in Sec. 63.697(b)(5).
Calculations may be based on data from the pressure relief device
monitoring alone or in combination with process parameter monitoring
data and process knowledge.
(4) Pressure relief devices routed to a drain system, fuel gas
system, process or control device. If a pressure relief device in off-
site material service is designed and operated to route all pressure
releases through a closed vent system to a drain system, fuel gas
system, process or control device, paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of
this section do not apply. The fuel gas system or closed vent system
and the process or control device (if applicable) must meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.693. The drain system (if applicable) must
meet the requirements of Sec. 63.689.
0
12. Section 63.693 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (8), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2)
introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B), (f)(1)(ii)(B), and (f)(2)
introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v) and (g)(2)(i); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.693 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a tank
through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to
comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.685(b)(1), (2), or (3), the
control device must be operating except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The control device may only be bypassed for the purpose of
performing planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or
control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be
performed during periods that tank emissions are vented to the control
device.
(ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system
or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not
exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
* * * * *
(8) In the case when an owner or operator chooses to use a design
analysis to demonstrate compliance of a control device with the
applicable performance requirements specified in this section as
provided for in paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section, the
Administrator may require that the design analysis be revised or
amended by the owner or operator to correct any deficiencies identified
by the Administrator. If the owner or operator and the Administrator do
not agree on the acceptability of using the design analysis (including
any changes required by the Administrator) to demonstrate that the
control device achieves the applicable performance requirements, then
the disagreement must be resolved using the results of a performance
test conducted by the owner or operator in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.694(l). The Administrator may choose to have
an authorized representative observe the performance test conducted by
the owner or operator. Should the results of this performance test not
agree with the determination of control device performance based on the
design analysis, then the results of the performance test will be used
to establish compliance with this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) A closed-vent system that is designed to operate at a pressure
below atmospheric pressure. The system shall be equipped with at least
one pressure gauge or other pressure measurement device that can be
read from a readily accessible location to verify that negative
pressure is being maintained in the closed-vent system when the control
device is operating.
(2) In situations when the closed-vent system includes bypass
devices that could be used to divert a vent stream from the closed-vent
system to the atmosphere at a point upstream of the control device
inlet, each bypass device must be equipped with either a flow indicator
as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section or a seal or
locking device as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section,
except as provided for in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section:
* * * * *
(iii) Equipment needed for safety reasons, including low leg
drains, open-ended valves and lines not in emergency shutdown systems,
and pressure relief devices subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.691(c) are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) To achieve a total incinerator outlet concentration for the
TOC, less methane and ethane, of less than or equal to 20 ppmv on a dry
basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
(ii) * * *
(B) To achieve a total incinerator outlet concentration for the
HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, of less than or equal to 20
ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
(2) The owner or operator must demonstrate that the vapor
incinerator achieves the performance requirements in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section by conducting either a performance test as specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section or a design analysis as specified
in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, except as provided for in
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test or design analysis if the incinerator has been issued a final
permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements of 40
CFR part 264, subpart O, or has certified compliance with the interim
status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart O.
(g) * * *
[[Page 14277]]
(1) * * *
(v) Introduce the vent stream to a boiler or process heater for
which the owner or operator either has been issued a final permit under
40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266,
subpart H; or has certified compliance with the interim status
requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or has submitted a
Notification of Compliance under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d)
and complies with the requirements of subpart EEE of this part at all
times (including times when non-hazardous waste is being burned).
(2) * * *
(i) If an owner or operator chooses to comply with the performance
specifications in either paragraph (g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with the
applicable performance specifications by conducting either a
performance test as specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) of this section
or a design analysis as specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B) of this
section, except as provided for in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C) of this
section.
* * * * *
(C) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test or design analysis if the boiler or process heater has been issued
a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with the requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or has certified compliance with the
interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.694 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iv),
(f)(1), (i)(1), (j)(3), (k)(3), (l) introductory text, (l)(2), (l)(3)
introductory text, (l)(3)(i), (l)(3)(ii)(B), (l)(4) introductory text,
(l)(4)(i), (l)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), (l)(4)(iii)(A), and (m)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.694 Testing methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) In the event that the Administrator and the owner or operator
disagree on a determination of the average VOHAP concentration for an
off-site material stream using knowledge, then the results from a
determination of VOHAP concentration using direct measurement as
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be used to
establish compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
The Administrator may perform or require that the owner or operator
perform this determination using direct measurement.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) The actual HAP mass removal rate (MR) shall be determined based
on results for a minimum of three consecutive runs. The sampling time
for each run shall be at least 1 hour.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) The actual HAP mass removal rate (MRbio) shall be
determined based on results for a minimum of three consecutive runs.
The sampling time for each run shall be at least 1 hour.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) Use of knowledge to determine the maximum HAP vapor pressure of
the off-site material. Documentation shall be prepared and recorded
that presents the information used as the basis for the owner's or
operator's knowledge that the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the off-
site material is less than the maximum vapor pressure limit listed in
Table 3, Table 4, or Table 5 of this subpart for the applicable tank
design capacity category. Examples of information that may be used
include: the off-site material is generated by a process for which at
other locations it previously has been determined by direct measurement
that the off-site material maximum HAP vapor pressure is less than the
maximum vapor pressure limit for the appropriate tank design capacity
category. In the event that the Administrator and the owner or operator
disagree on a determination of the maximum HAP vapor pressure for an
off-site material stream using knowledge, then the results from a
determination of HAP vapor pressure using direct measurement as
specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section shall be used to
establish compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
The Administrator may perform or require that the owner or operator
perform this determination using direct measurement.
(k) * * *
(3) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument response
factor criteria in section 8.1.1 of Method 21 shall be for the weighted
average composition of the organic constituents in the material placed
in the unit at the time of monitoring, not for each individual organic
constituent.
* * * * *
(l) Control device performance test procedures. Performance tests
shall be based on representative performance (i.e., performance based
on normal operating conditions) and shall exclude periods of startup
and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator. The owner or
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(2) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method
2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate.
(3) To determine compliance with the control device percent
reduction requirement, the owner or operator shall use Method 18 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A to measure the HAP in Table 1 of this subpart
or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to measure TOC. Method 18
may be used to measure methane and ethane, and the measured
concentration may be subtracted from the Method 25A measurement.
Alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated
according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 in appendix A of
this part may be used. The following procedures shall be used to
calculate percent reduction efficiency:
(i) A minimum of three sample runs must be performed. The minimum
sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour. For Method 18, either an
integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time such as 15 minute intervals during the run.
(ii) * * *
(B) When the TOC mass rate is calculated, the average concentration
reading (minus methane and ethane) measured by Method 25A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A shall be used in the equation in paragraph
(l)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) To determine compliance with the enclosed combustion device
total HAP concentration limit of this subpart, the owner or operator
shall use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to measure the total
HAP in Table 1 of this subpart or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A to measure TOC. Method 18 may be used to measure
[[Page 14278]]
methane and ethane and the measured concentration may be subtracted
from the Method 25A measurement. Alternatively, any other method or
data that has been validated according to Method 301 in appendix A of
this part, may be used. The following procedures shall be used to
calculate parts per million by volume concentration, corrected to 3
percent oxygen:
(i) A minimum of three sample runs must be performed. The minimum
sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour. For Method 18, either an
integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time, such as 15 minute intervals during the run.
(ii) * * *
(A) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is the average
concentration readings provided by Method 25 A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, minus the concentration of methane and ethane.
(B) The total HAP concentration (CHAP) shall be computed
according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR15.000
where:
CHAP = Total concentration of HAP compounds listed in
Table 1 of this subpart, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Cij = Concentration of sample components j of sample i,
dry basis, parts per million by volume.
n = Number of components in the sample.
x = Number of samples in the sample run.
(iii) * * *
(A) The emission rate correction factor or excess air, integrated
sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration
(%O2dry). Alternatively, the owner or operator may use
Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to determine the oxygen
concentration. The samples shall be collected during the same time that
the samples are collected for determining TOC concentration or total
HAP concentration.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller
than 0.10 meter in diameter. For vents smaller than 0.10 meter in
diameter, sample at the center of the vent.
(3) Process vent stream gas volumetric flow rate must be determined
using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.695 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(4) and (5); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs (e)(6) and (7).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.695 Inspection and monitoring requirements.
(a) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate all monitoring system components according to Sec. Sec. 63.8,
63.684(e), 63.693(d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), (g)(3), and (h)(3), and
paragraph (a)(5) of this section and perform the inspection and
monitoring procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section.
* * * * *
(5)(i) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and
span adjustments), the owner or operator must operate the continuous
monitoring system at all times the affected source is operating. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator is
required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to
monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to
operation as expeditiously as practicable.
(ii) The owner or operator may not use data recorded during
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or
control activities in calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. The owner or operator must use all the data collected
during all other required data collection periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system. The
owner or operator must report any periods for which the monitoring
system failed to collect required data.
* * * * *
(e) Control device monitoring requirements. For each control device
required under Sec. 63.693 to be monitored in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph (e), the owner or operator must ensure
that each control device operates properly by monitoring the control
device in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) A deviation for a given control device is determined to have
occurred when the monitoring data or lack of monitoring data result in
any one of the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii)
of this section being met. When multiple operating parameters are
monitored for the same control device and during the same operating day
more than one of these operating parameters meets a deviation criterion
specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, then a
single deviation is determined to have occurred for the control device
for that operating day.
(i) A deviation occurs when the daily average value of a monitored
operating parameter is less than the minimum operating parameter limit
(or, if applicable, greater than the maximum operating parameter limit)
established for the operating parameter in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(ii) A deviation occurs when the period of control device operation
is 4 hours or greater in an operating day and the monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data for at least 75 percent
of the operating hours. Monitoring data are insufficient to constitute
a valid hour of data if measured values are unavailable for any of the
15-minute periods within the hour.
(iii) A deviation occurs when the period of control device
operation is less than 4 hours in an operating day and more than 1 of
the hours during the period does not constitute a valid hour of data
due to insufficient monitoring data. Monitoring data are insufficient
to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values are unavailable
for any of the 15-minute periods within the hour.
(5) For each deviation, except when the deviation occurs during
periods of non-operation of the unit or the process that is vented to
the control device (resulting in cessation of HAP emissions to which
the monitoring applies), the owner or operator shall be deemed to have
failed to have applied control in a manner that achieves the required
operating parameter limits. Failure to achieve the required operating
[[Page 14279]]
parameter limits is a violation of this standard.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.696 is amended by revising paragraph (h) and adding
paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.696 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(h) An owner or operator shall record the malfunction information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the
date, time and duration of the failure.
(2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.683(e) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(i) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service, keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5)
of this section, as applicable.
(1) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that the owner or operator elects to route emissions through a closed-
vent system to a control device, process or drain system under the
provisions in Sec. 63.691(c)(4).
(2) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that do not consist of or include a rupture disk, subject to the
provisions in Sec. 63.691(c)(2)(i).
(3) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions in Sec.
63.691(c)(2)(ii).
(4) The dates and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release for each pressure
relief device subject to the provisions in Sec. 63.691(c)(2)(i). The
results of each monitoring event shall include:
(i) The measured background level.
(ii) The maximum instrument reading measured at each pressure
relief device.
(5) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec. 63.691(c)(3), keep records of each pressure release to
the atmosphere, including the following information:
(i) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
(ii) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the pressure release and the calculations used
for determining this quantity.
(iv) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
(v) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
(j) (1) For pressure tank closure devices, as specified in Sec.
63.685(h)(2), keep records of each release to the atmosphere, including
the information specified in paragraphs (j)(3) though (7) of this
section.
(2) For each closed vent system that includes bypass devices that
could divert a stream away from the control device and into the
atmosphere, as specified in Sec. 63.693(c)(2), and each open-ended
valve or line in an emergency shutdown system which is designed to open
automatically in the event of a process upset, as specified in Sec.
63.167(d) or 40 CFR 61.242-6(d), keep records of each release to the
atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs (j)(3)
though (9) of this section.
(3) The source, nature, and cause of the release.
(4) The date, time, and duration of the release.
(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the release and the calculations used for
determining this quantity.
(6) The actions taken to prevent this release.
(7) The measures adopted to prevent future such release.
(8) Hourly records of whether the bypass flow indicator specified
under Sec. 63.693(c)(2) was operating and whether a diversion was
detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times
of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device
or the flow indicator is not operating.
(9) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with Sec.
63.693(c)(2), hourly records of flow are not required. In such cases,
the owner or operator shall record that the monthly visual inspection
of the seals or closure mechanism has been done, and shall record the
duration of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass
line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type
lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has broken.
0
16. Section 63.697 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) and (a)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) and (4); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.697 Reporting requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must comply with the notification requirements specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the reporting requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
(1) * * *
(i) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.691(c), the owner or operator
must submit the information listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section in the notification of compliance status required under Sec.
63.9(h) within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for
pressure relief device monitoring.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service, a
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information
to be recorded under Sec. 63.696(i)(5)(ii) through (iii) (i.e., the
duration of the pressure release and the methodology and calculations
for determining the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart
emitted during the pressure release).
* * * * *
(3) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by
this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the results of the
performance test according to the manner specified by either paragraph
(a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or operator
must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Owners or operators who
claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is
confidential business information (CBI) must submit a
[[Page 14280]]
complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, including
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Road, Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI
omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph (a)(3)(i).
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported
by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or
operator must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 60.4.
(b) * * *
(3) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each
instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(4) A summary report specified in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) shall be
submitted on a semiannual basis (i.e., once every 6-month period). The
summary report must include a description of all deviations as defined
in Sec. Sec. 63.683(f) and 63.695(e) that have occurred during the 6-
month reporting period. For each deviation caused when the daily
average value of a monitored operating parameter is less than the
minimum operating parameter limit (or, if applicable, greater than the
maximum operating parameter limit), the report must include the daily
average values of the monitored parameter, the applicable operating
parameter limit, and the date and duration of the period that the
deviation occurred. For each deviation caused by lack of monitoring
data, the report must include the date and duration of period when the
monitoring data were not collected and the reason why the data were not
collected.
(5) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec. 63.691(c), Periodic Reports must include the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec. 63.691(c), report the results of all monitoring
conducted within the reporting period.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service subject to
Sec. 63.691(c)(2)(i), report any instrument reading of 500 ppm above
background or greater, if detected more than 5 days after the pressure
release.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in off-site material service
subject to Sec. 63.691(c)(3), report each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the following information:
(A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
(B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the pressure release and the method used for
determining this quantity.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
(6) Pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation report. The
owner or operator must submit to the Administrator the information
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iv) of this section when any of the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section are
met.
(i) Any pressure tank closure device, as specified in Sec.
63.685(h)(2), has released to the atmosphere.
(ii) Any closed vent system that includes bypass devices that could
divert a vent a stream away from the control device and into the
atmosphere, as specified in Sec. 63.693(c)(2), has released directly
to the atmosphere.
(iii) Any open-ended valve or line in an emergency shutdown system
which is designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset, as specified in Sec. 63.167(d) or 40 CFR 61.242-6(d), has
released directly to the atmosphere.
(iv) The pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation report
must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(A)
through (E) of this section.
(A) The source, nature and cause of the release.
(B) The date, time and duration of the discharge.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart emitted during the release and the method used for determining
this quantity.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such releases.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.698 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.698 Implementation and enforcement.
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
Tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of
this section.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of alternatives to the electronic reporting
requirements in Sec. 63.697(a)(3).
0
18. Table 2 to subpart DD of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(13) and 63.1(a)(14);
0
b. Revising entries 63.1(b)(2), 63.1(c)(3), and 63.1(c)(4);
0
c. Removing entry 63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(3);
0
d. Adding entries 63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(2) and 63.4(a)(3);
0
e. Revising entries 63.4(a)(5), 63.5(a)(1), 63.5(b)(5), 63.6(b)(3), and
63.6(b)(4);
0
f. Removing entry 63.6(e);
0
g. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii),
63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3);
0
h. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1);
0
i. Adding entry 63.7(a)(4);
0
j. Revising entries 63.7(b), 63.7(c), 63.7(e)(1), 63.7(f),
63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.9(e), 63.9(g), 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);
0
k. Removing entry 63.10(c);
0
l. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(6), 63.10(c)(7)-(8), and 63.10(c)(9)-
(15);
0
m. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 63.10(d)(5)(ii);
0
n. Adding entry 63.10(d)(5);
0
o. Removing entry 63.10(e);
0
p. Adding entries 63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2), 63.10(e)(3), and
63.10(e)(4); and
0
q. Adding entry 63.16.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 14281]]
Table 2 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Applicability of Paragraphs in Subpart A of This Part 63--General Provisions
to Subpart DD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A reference Applies to Subpart DD Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(b)(2).............................. No Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(c)(3).............................. No Reserved.
63.1(c)(4).............................. No Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(2)................... Yes
63.4(a)(3).............................. No Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.4(a)(5).............................. No Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.5(a)(1).............................. Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.5(b)(5).............................. No Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.6(b)(3).............................. No
63.6(b)(4).............................. No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................... No See Sec. 63.683(e) for general duty
requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................... No
63.6(e)(1)(iii)......................... Yes
63.6(e)(2).............................. No Reserved.
63.6(e)(3).............................. No
63.6(f)(1).............................. No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(a)(4).............................. Yes
63.7(b)................................. Yes
63.7(c)................................. Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(e)(1).............................. No See Sec. 63.694(l).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.7(f)................................. Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.8(c)(1)(iii)......................... No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14282]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(e)................................. Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(g)................................. Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................... No
63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................... No See Sec. 63.696(h) for recordkeeping of
(1) date, time and duration; (2) listing
of affected source or equipment, and an
estimate of the volume of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the standard; and
(3) actions to minimize emissions and
correct the failure.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)........................ Yes .........................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)......................... No .........................................
63.10(b)(2)(v).......................... No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(c)(1)-(6)......................... No .........................................
63.10(c)(7)-(8)......................... Yes .........................................
63.10(c)(9)-(15)........................ No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(d)(5)............................. No See Sec. 63.697(b)(3) for reporting of
malfunctions.
63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2)................. No
63.10(e)(3)............................. Yes
63.10(e)(4)............................. No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.16................................... No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
19. Table 3 to subpart DD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at
Existing Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum HAP vapor
Tank design capacity (cubic pressure of off-site
meters) material managed in Tank control level
tank (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design capacity less than 75 Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
m\3\. pressure less than
76.6 kPa.
Design capacity less than 75 Maximum HAP vapor Level 2, except that
m\3\. pressure equal to fixed roof tanks
or greater than equipped with an
76.6 kPa. internal floating
roof and tanks
equipped with an
external floating
roof as provided
for in Sec.
63.685(d)(1) and
(2) shall not be
used.
Design capacity equal to or Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
greater than 75 m\3\ and pressure less than
less than 151 m\3\. 27.6 kPa.
Maximum HAP vapor Level 2.
pressure equal to
or greater than
27.6 kPa.
Design capacity equal to or Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
greater than 151 m\3\. pressure less than
5.2 kPa.
Maximum HAP vapor Level 2.
pressure equal to
or greater than 5.2
kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14283]]
0
20. Table 4 to subpart DD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at
Existing Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum HAP vapor
Tank design capacity (cubic pressure of off-site
meters) material managed in Tank control level
tank (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design capacity less than 75 Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
m\3\. pressure less than
76.6 kPa.
Design capacity less than 75 Maximum HAP vapor Level 2, except that
m\3\. pressure equal to fixed roof tanks
or greater than equipped with an
76.6 kPa. internal floating
roof and tanks
equipped with an
external floating
roof as provided
for in Sec.
63.685(d)(1) and
(2) shall not be
used.
Design capacity equal to or Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
greater than 75 m\3\ and pressure less than
less than 151 m\3\. 13.1 kPa.
Maximum HAP vapor Level 2.
pressure equal to
or greater than
13.1 kPa.
Design capacity equal to or Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
greater than 151 m\3\. pressure less than
5.2 kPa.
Maximum HAP vapor Level 2.
pressure equal to
or greater than 5.2
kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
21. Table 5 is added to subpart DD of part 63 to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at New
Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum HAP vapor
Tank design capacity (cubic pressure of off-site
meters) material managed in Tank control level
tank (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design capacity less than 38 Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
m\3\. pressure less than
76.6 kPa.
Design capacity less than 38 Maximum HAP vapor Level 2, except that
m\3\. pressure equal to fixed roof tanks
or greater than equipped with an
76.6 kPa. internal floating
roof and tanks
equipped with an
external floating
roof as provided
for in Sec.
63.685(d)(1) and
(2) shall not be
used.
Design capacity equal to or Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
greater than 38 m\3\ and pressure less than
less than 151 m\3\. 13.1 kPa.
Maximum HAP vapor Level 2.
pressure equal to
or greater than
13.1 kPa.
Design capacity equal to or Maximum HAP vapor Level 1.
greater than 151 m\3\. pressure less than
0.7 kPa.
Maximum HAP vapor Level 2.
pressure equal to
or greater than 0.7
kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-05463 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P