[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20208-20238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09119]
[[Page 20207]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 89
May 8, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine Test
Cells/Stands Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20208]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753; FRL-9993-20-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT01
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine
Test Cells/Stands Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the
results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Engine Test Cells/Stands. We found risks due to emissions of air toxics
from this source category to be acceptable and determined that the
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. We identified no new cost-effective controls under the
technology review to achieve further emission reductions. We are
proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limit based on the
risk analysis and technology review. We are proposing to amend
provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM), to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting and to make
clarifying and technical corrections.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before June 7, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before May 13, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/engine-test-cellsstands-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0753, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0753 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0753.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(Mail Code D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5426; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Kevin
McGinn, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-05),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-3796; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability
of the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Adrian Gates at (919) 541-4860 or by
email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to register
to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public
hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0753. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
[[Page 20209]]
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ATSDR Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
DoD Department of Defense
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
hp horsepower
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM10 particulate matter with particles less than 10
micrometers in diameter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume dry basis
RACT reasonably available control technology
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SCC Source Classification Code
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VOC volatile organic compounds
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
[[Page 20210]]
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576;
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the
``Engine Test Facilities'' source category is any facility engaged in
the testing of stationary and mobile engines, including turbines and
reciprocating engines. Test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines were identified as an additional subcategory during the NESHAP
rulemaking.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Test Facilities........ Engine Test Cells/ 333120, 333618,
Stands. 333111, 334312,
336111, 336120,
336112, 336992,
336312, 336350,
54171, 541380,
333611, 336411,
336412, 336414,
92711.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/engine-test-cellsstands-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This
second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.''
In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA
to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to
determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into the
standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking,
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the
[[Page 20211]]
two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk
and the Agency's interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed
in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene
Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-
Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14,
1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency
intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section
112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The
EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk
determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that
CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the
Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The NESHAP for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category was
promulgated on May 27, 2003 (68 FR 28774), and codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPP. As promulgated in 2003, the Engine Test Cells/Stands
NESHAP applies to engine test cells/stands located at major sources of
HAP emissions. An engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for
testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines. That is,
the NESHAP regulates the testing of engines, not the testing of any
final product (e.g., automobile, boat, or power generator). Engine test
cells/stands are used for research and development activities (e.g.,
new model development, endurance testing) and for quality control at
engine production facilities. The affected source is defined in the
NESHAP as the collection of all equipment and activities associated
with engine test cells/stands used for testing uninstalled engines. The
NESHAP does not apply to any portion of the affected source used in
research and teaching activities at facilities that are not engaged in
the development of engines or engine test services for commercial
purposes or any portion of the affected source operated to test or
evaluate fuels, transmissions, or electronics.
The NESHAP covers four subcategories of engine test cells/stands:
(1) Cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with
rated power of 25 horsepower (hp) or more; (2) cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with rated power of less than 25
hp; (3) cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines; and
(4) cells/stands used for testing rocket engines. The first two
subcategories cover facilities where reciprocating engines are tested,
such as automobile engines and emergency generators. The combustion
turbine subcategory includes jet engines, turboprops, and gas turbines.
The affected source is further classified as either an existing,
new, or reconstructed source. An affected source is said to be
``existing'' if its construction began on or before May 14, 2002, and
no reconstruction of the source occurred after that date. An affected
source is considered ``new'' or ``reconstructed'' if it was constructed
or reconstructed after May 14, 2002. The distinction between
``existing'' and ``new/reconstructed'' affected sources is important as
existing affected sources testing engines are not subject to emission
limits. However, new and reconstructed affected sources testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp or more are
subject to emission limits.
The typical engine test cell consists of one or more stands for
mounting engines, storage tanks, and piping for fuels and cooling
fluids, an electronic control system, data acquisition instrumentation
for monitoring and recording engine parameters during testing, blast
panels, fire suppression equipment, and spill collection systems. Most
engine testing is performed indoors in a purpose-built enclosure
equipped with ventilation systems with hoods, ducts, and fans. However,
testing of jet engines, turboprops, large turbines, and rocket engines
is sometimes conducted on outdoor test stands. Some test cells/stands
include climate control systems that enable testing to be completed
under a variety of temperature, humidity, and pressure conditions. Test
cells used for aircraft engines and rockets sometimes include specially
designed air handling systems that simulate high altitude conditions.
Most sources have between two and 10 engine test cells/stands. However,
a few larger sources have over 100 test cells.
Engine test cells/stands emit HAP in the exhaust gases from
combustion of gaseous and liquid fuels in the engines tested. The
emission rates and annual emissions vary based on the size and design
of the engines tested, the types of fuels burned, and the number, type,
and duration of tests performed. A wide range of engines are tested in
the U.S., including two- and four-stroke reciprocating engines used in
boats, automobiles, buses, and trucks; combustion turbines used for
power generation; jet and turboprop engines used in military and
civilian aircraft; and rocket engines used in a variety of military and
civilian applications. Fuels
[[Page 20212]]
used during testing include biofuels, natural gas, propane, gasoline,
kerosene, jet fuel, diesel, and various grades of fuel oil.
The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of
fuels in the engines being tested in the test cells/stands. The primary
HAP present in the exhaust gases from engine test cells/stands are
formaldehyde, benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
The Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP provides the owner or operator
of a new or reconstructed affected source used in whole or in part for
testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp or more
and located at a major source of HAP emissions two compliance options:
(1) Reduce carbon monoxide (CO) or total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions
in the exhaust from the new or reconstructed affected source to 20
parts per million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) or less, at 15-percent
oxygen (O2) content, or (2) reduce CO or THC emissions in
the exhaust from the new or reconstructed affected source by 96 percent
or more. If a new affected source elects to comply with the percent
reduction emission limitation, the affected source must conduct an
initial performance test to determine the capture and control
efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be
achieved on a continuous basis.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
During the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, the EPA
collected information on the emissions, operations, and location of
engine test cells/stands. Since this information was collected prior to
the 2003 promulgation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, the EPA
prepared a questionnaire in 2016 in order to collect current
information on the location and number of engine test cells/stands,
types and quantities of emissions, number and type of engines tested,
length and purpose of tests, annual operating hours, types and
quantities of fuels burned, and information on air pollution control
devices and emission points. Ten companies completed the 2016
questionnaire for which they reported data for 15 major source
facilities. The EPA used data from the 2016 questionnaires to develop
the modeling dataset for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP risk
modeling.
The list of facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPP was developed using EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO) database, the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (2014
NEI) and the facility list developed for the 2003 promulgation of 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP. Facilities with engine test cells/stands
were identified in the 2014 NEI records by either the source
classification codes (SCCs) or NAICS codes. The facility list was then
refined using air permit information to determine whether the facility
was a major source of HAP and subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP.
The initial list of facilities and their engine test cells/stands was
posted to the EPA's Engine Test Cells/Stands: National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) website for review by
industry and trade organizations.\2\ The EPA also emailed the list to
several trade organizations as part of an outreach effort to the
industry. EPA Regional offices and state and local air pollution
control agencies were asked to review the list and provide corrections
as necessary. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) were also consulted and
provided information for engine testing facilities located at research
sites and military bases. Changes to the facility list were made based
on the new information received. The final risk modeling datafile
included all 59 facilities, each with one or more engine test cells/
stands that are in the source category, not just the engine test cells/
stands facilities that are subject to emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/engine-test-cellsstands-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air#rule-summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to the ECHO and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed the
additional information sources listed below and consulted with
stakeholders regulated under the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP to
determine whether there have been developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies by engine testing sources. These include the
following:
Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits
submitted by facilities as part of their response to the questionnaire
and collected from state agencies;
Information on air pollution control options in the engine
testing industry from the reasonably available control technology/best
available control technology/lowest achievable emission rate
Clearinghouse (RBLC);
Information on the most effective ways to control
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and organic HAP from
sources in various industries; and
Communication with trade groups and associations
representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their
members.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\3\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
[[Page 20213]]
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse
chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for
HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recommendations of the SAB RTR Panel are provided in their
report, which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
[[Page 20214]]
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II. D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine
Test Cells/Stands Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's
SAB in 2009; \5\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010.
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The list of facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPP, was developed using the ECHO database, the 2014 NEI and the
facility list developed for the promulgation of the 2003 NESHAP.
Facilities with engine test cells/stands were identified in the 2014
NEI records by their SCC or NAICS codes. The facility list was then
refined using air permit information to determine whether the facility
was a major source of HAP and subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP.
The EPA emailed the list to several trade organizations as part of an
outreach effort to the industry. The EPA Regional offices and state and
local air pollution control agencies were asked to review the list and
provide corrections as necessary. The DoD and NASA were also consulted
and provided information for engine testing facilities located at
research sites and military bases. Changes to the facility list were
made based on the new information received. The final risk modeling
datafile included 59 facilities, each with one or more engine test
cell/stand. We are interested in your comments on the development of
the facility list used in our analysis. For more details on the
facility list development, see the memorandum titled Emissions Data
Used for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Residual Risk Modeling File, in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753).
To determine which HAP should be modeled, we reviewed NEI emissions
data and several other relevant sources to identify the principal HAP
emitted.6 7 8 9 Because the type and quantity of emissions
are related to the engine type and fuel combusted, we developed a list
of HAP for each engine type and fuel combination. The organic HAP
selected for turbines and reciprocating engines are formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and
naphthalene. In addition to these eight listed organic HAP, for diesel-
fired turbines and reciprocating engines the following metal HAP
compounds were also listed: Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. The eight
organic HAP were modeled for all test cells/stands used for testing
turbines and/or reciprocating engines. Metal HAP emissions are not
expected from jet fuel-, kerosene-, naphtha-, natural gas-, or
gasoline-fired engines. Hence, metal HAP emissions were included in the
modeling file only for test cells/stands testing turbines and
reciprocating engines that burn diesel or distillate fuels. Limited
emissions information was available for rocket engines. Hence, we
modeled only HAP reported to NEI by each of the seven facilities
engaged in rocket testing. The HAP modeled varied by facility due to
differences in the type of propellant used. The HAP modeled for rocket
engine testing included organic HAP, metal HAP, chlorine, hydrogen
chloride, and hydrogen fluoride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Memorandum from Melanie Taylor (Alpha-Gamma Technologies,
Inc.) to Sims Roy (U.S. EPA OAQPS), Emissions Data for Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines, February 4, 2002.
\7\ Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP-42, Fifth
Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January
1995.
\8\ Web Factor and Information Retrieval System (WebFire), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/).
\9\ U.S. EPA SPECIATE Database (version 4.5), available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/speciate-version-45-through-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We compiled the actual emissions data using the following four-step
approach. Step 1--where possible, the actual emissions from the 2014
NEI and the 2016 questionnaires were used for the very few facilities
that reported HAP emissions to either NEI or in their completed 2016
questionnaires. For facilities where HAP data were not available from
these sources, we proceeded to step 2 (for facilities that submitted
2016 questionnaires) and step 3 for all others.
Step 2--As noted above, facilities that completed the 2016
questionnaire were asked to provide information on the types and
quantities of each fuel consumed during engine testing. HAP emissions
for these facilities, when not directly reported to NEI or in the
questionnaire, were calculated by multiplying the fuel usage reported
in the questionnaire by an emission factor. The emission factors used
to calculate emissions were obtained from three
sources.10 11 12 Where a reliable emissions factor for a HAP
was not available, we calculated emissions of VOC and filterable
particulate matter with diameter less than 10 microns (PM10)
emissions using emission factors, and then used the VOC and
PM10
[[Page 20215]]
emissions values in step 3 to calculate HAP emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Memorandum on Emissions Data for RICE, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc, to U.S. EPA, 2002.
\11\ Speciation Profiles and Toxic Emission Factors for Nonroad
Engines, Table 13.
\12\ AP-42, Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3--For those facilities that either reported VOC emissions to
the 2014 NEI or for which we were able to calculate VOC emissions using
fuel data from the 2016 questionnaire, we calculated organic HAP
emissions by multiplying the VOC emissions by a speciation factor.
Similarly, the metal HAP emissions were calculated by multiplying the
PM10 emissions (either reported in the 2014 NEI or
calculated from 2016 questionnaire data) by a metal HAP speciation
factor. The speciation factors used were based on speciation profiles
from EPA's SPECIATE database.\13\ Where no speciation profiles were
available in SPECIATE, we developed speciation factors using AP-42
emission factors. For those engine/fuel combinations where no organic
HAP speciation profiles or AP-42 emission factors existed, we developed
speciation factors using the average HAP-to-VOC ratio based on the
available emissions data for sources operating under the same SCC. The
same approach was used to develop metal HAP speciation factors using
the average of the HAP-to-PM10 ratio using the available
PM10 and HAP data for other sources operating under the same
SCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ SPECIATE is the EPA's repository of volatile organic gas
and particulate matter (PM) speciation profiles of air pollution
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 4--Where data needed for steps 1 through 3 were not available,
we based the HAP emissions on either:
(1) The HAP emissions from other similar test cells/stands located
at the same facility and operating under the same SCC; or
(2) The HAP emissions from other similar test cells/stands located
at a different facility that operate under the same SCC.
An average annual emissions value was used where emissions data for
more than one test cell/stand was available.
Mercury emissions were modeled as three different species: Gaseous
elemental mercury, gaseous divalent mercury, and particulate divalent
mercury. Chromium emissions were modeled as hexavalent chromium and
trivalent chromium. We used emissions for total mercury and total
chromium determined by using the methods outlined above, in combination
with speciation factors from the EPA's SPECIATE, to calculate the
emissions of each species. The SPECIATE database contains source-
specific, weight-fraction emission speciation profiles. The total
mercury emissions were multiplied by the speciation factors of 0.5 for
elemental mercury, 0.30 for gaseous divalent mercury, and 0.20 for
particulate divalent mercury. The total chromium emissions were
multiplied by speciation factors of 0.18 for hexavalent chromium and
0.82 for trivalent chromium.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
Generally, allowable emissions for risk modeling are set equal to
the current emission limits included in the rule. For this NESHAP,
however, there are no emission limits for existing engine test cells/
stands or for new test cells/stands used for testing combustion
turbines, rockets, and internal combustion engines with rated power
less than 25 hp. Although there are limits for new and reconstructed
engine test cells/stands used to test internal combustion engines rated
at 25 hp and above, only seven engine test cells/stands facilities have
been constructed or reconstructed since the NESHAP was proposed in
2002. Thus, 52 of the 59 affected facilities are not subject to
emission limits. Because most engine test cells/stands are not subject
to emission limits and the emissions from engine test cells/stands can
be variable, we have taken a conservative approach to estimating the
allowable emissions for this source category. We estimated the
allowable emissions at 4.5 times the actual emissions that were
determined using the methods as described in section III.C.1 of this
preamble. The 4.5 multiplier was determined based on data provided by
facilities responding to our 2016 questionnaire that showed most
facilities operate their engine test cells/stands at slightly less than
50 percent of their maximum potential. By setting the allowable
multiplier at half the acute multiplier of 9.5, the estimated allowable
emissions included in the modeling datafile are conservative estimates
that take into consideration the potential variability in emissions
from this source category.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\14\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air; (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources;
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\15\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \16\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling
[[Page 20216]]
hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third
library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate
health risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\16\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \17\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,\18\ worst-case
dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under
section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to
assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for
Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term
Emission Rates. Both are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response
[[Page 20217]]
planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if
available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by
dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value.
For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the
EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \19\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\20\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\20\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \21\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category, annual actual
emission values were multiplied by a conservative factor of 9.5 instead
of the default emissions multiplier of 10. This source category
specific factor was developed using activity data collected from the
2016 questionnaire. A further discussion of why this factor was chosen
can be found in the memorandum, Emissions Data and Acute Risk Factor
Used in Residual Risk Modeling: Engine Test Cell/Stands, available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined
estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. For this
source category, the data refinements employed consisted of looking at
the impact of acute risks at only off source category property
locations. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this source category.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be PB-
HAP, as identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see
Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library.
For the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category, we identified PB-
HAP emissions of lead compounds, cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds,
mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM) (of which
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset), so we proceeded to the
next step of the evaluation. In this step, we determine whether the
facility-specific emission rates of the emitted PB-HAP are large enough
to create the potential for significant human health risk through
ingestion exposure under reasonable worst-case conditions. To
facilitate this step, we use previously developed screening threshold
emission rates for several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical
upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction
with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening
threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds,
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and
[[Page 20218]]
POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation
potential, the pollutants above represent a conservative list for
inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume
1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201308/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this assessment, we compare the
facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the screening
threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the potential for
significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this
application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The
ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between local
meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1
screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility
based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for
the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and
USGS waterbody data. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed
the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available,
we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB-HAP emission rates
do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider those PB-HAP
emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment
indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\22\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four-exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in
[[Page 20219]]
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Engine Test Cells/Stands
source category emitted any of the environmental HAP (cadmium, dioxins,
POM, mercury [both inorganic mercury and methylmercury], arsenic, and
lead). For the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category, we identified
emissions of arsenic, cadmium, HCl, HF, lead, mercury, and POMs.
Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by
at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the
second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records
of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described
in section II.C of this preamble (What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?). Once a quality assured source
category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining
records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the
modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks
to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be
attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual
[[Page 20220]]
Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available
through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and
results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide
risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-
wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\23\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\24\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\25\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect
[[Page 20221]]
against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\24\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\25\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak
emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations.
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption
that a person is located at this point during this same time period.
For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case
actual exposures, as it is unlikely that a person would be located at
the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and
worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account
[[Page 20222]]
for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus
using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of
lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we
apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to
account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the
likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are
overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening
assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model
inputs again to account for hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of
the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological
data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding
to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate
estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby
reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the
associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure
scenario are the same for all three tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. More detailed
information on the risk assessment can be found in the risk document,
available in the docket for this action.
Table 2--Engine Test Cells/Stands Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Population at increased Annual cancer incidence Maximum chronic Maximum
cancer risk (in 1 risk of cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) noncancer TOSHI \3\ screening acute
million) \2\ million ---------------------------------------------------- Noncancer HQ \4\
---------------------------------------------------- Based on . . . Based on . . . -----------------
Number of Facilities \1\ Based on . . . Based on . . . ----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Based on actual
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions level
level level level level level level level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59............................ 20 70 2,700 190,000 0.005 0.02 0.1 0.5 HQREL = 9
(acrolein).
HQAEGL-1 = 0.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory. The respiratory TOSHI was calculated using the
CalEPA chronic REL for acrolein. The EPA is in the process of updating the IRIS RfC for acrolein. If the RfC is updated prior to signature of the
final rule, we will use it in the assessment.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
available acute dose-response value.
As shown in Table 2, the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment,
based on actual emissions could be as high as 20-in-1 million, with
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions from
reciprocating engine testing as the major contributors to the risk. The
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.005
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 200 years.
About 2,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1
million from HAP emitted from this source category, with 60 of those
people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. The
maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source category could be up
to 0.1 (respiratory) driven by emissions of acrolein, acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, and naphthalene from reciprocating engine testing, and no
one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 1.
Results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-
allowable emissions indicate that the cancer MIR could be as high as
70-in-1 million with benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and
acetaldehyde emissions from
[[Page 20223]]
reciprocating engine testing driving the risks, and that the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI (respiratory) value could be as high as 0.5 at
the MACT-allowable emissions level with acrolein, acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, and naphthalene emissions from reciprocating engine
testing driving the TOSHI. The total estimated cancer incidence from
this source category considering allowable emissions is expected to be
about 0.02 excess cancer cases per year or 1 excess case in every 50
years. Based on allowable emission rates, approximately 190,000 people
are estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million, with 500 of
those people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. No
people are estimated to have a noncancer HI above 1.
2. Acute Risk Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides the worst-case acute HQ (based on
the REL) of 9, driven by actual emissions of acrolein. To better
characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated
worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key
recommendation from the SAB's peer review of the EPA's RTR risk
assessment methodologies, we examined a wider range of available acute
health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures. However, the level of exposure
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. Therefore,
when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available
(i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the
general public for a single exposure), we typically use them as an
additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for
exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience
effects. As the exposure concentration increases above the acute REL,
the potential for effects increases.
The highest refined screening acute HQ value was 9 (based on the
acute REL for acrolein). This value includes a refinement of
determining the highest HQ value that is outside facility boundaries.
In this case the highest value (9) occurs adjacent to the property
boundary in a remote wooded location. HQ values at any nearby
residential location are below 1. As noted previously, the highest HQ
assumes that the primary source of the acrolein emissions from turbine
engine testing operations was modeled with an hourly emissions
multiplier of 9.5 times the annual emissions rate. As presented in
Table 2, no facilities are estimated to have an HQ based on an AEGL or
an EPRG greater than 1.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Of the 59 facilities in the source category, 21 facilities reported
emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic and POM), and 23 facilities
reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury). Of
the facilities included in the assessment, three facilities reported
emissions of a carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic) that exceeded a Tier 1
cancer screening threshold emission rate, and one facility reported
emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury) that
exceeded a Tier 1 noncancer screening threshold emission rate. For
facilities that exceeded the Tier 1 multipathway screening threshold
emission rate for one or more PB-HAP, we used additional facility site-
specific information to perform a Tier 2 assessment and determine the
maximum chronic cancer and noncancer impacts for the source category.
Based on the Tier 2 multipathway cancer assessment, the arsenic
emissions exceeded the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate by a
factor of 2.
An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate in any of the
tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it
represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For
example, a screening threshold emission rate of 2 for a non-carcinogen
can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be
lower than 2. Similarly, a tier screening threshold emission rate of 30
for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the risk is lower
than 30-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the conservative, or
health-protective, assumptions encompassed in the screening tiers: We
choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for
the influential parameters used in the screening tiers, and we assume
that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead
to a high total exposure.
The Tier 2 noncancer screening threshold emission rate for both
mercury and cadmium emissions were below 1. Thus, based on the Tier 2
results presented above, additional screening or site-specific
assessments were not deemed necessary.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this document, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium,
HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and
POMs.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic and POM emissions had no
exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Divalent
mercury, methyl mercury and cadmium emissions had Tier 1 exceedances at
one facility of surface soil benchmarks by a maximum screening value of
3.
A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for divalent mercury,
methyl mercury, and cadmium emissions. In the Tier 2 screening
analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks
evaluated for any of the pollutants.
For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e.,
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis,
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The facility-wide chronic MIR and TOSHI are based on emissions from
all sources at the identified facilities (both MACT and non-MACT
sources). The results of the facility-wide assessment for cancer risks
indicate that 23 facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million, and 10 of those facilities have a
facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 10-in-1-million. The
maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 70-in-1 million, mainly driven by
emissions of chromium (VI) compounds from organic solvent
(miscellaneous VOC) evaporation. The total estimated cancer incidence
from the whole facility is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or about
one excess case in every 33 years. Approximately 190,000 people are
estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to
HAP emitted from both MACT and non-
[[Page 20224]]
MACT sources at the 59 facilities in this source category, with 6,800
of those people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million.
The maximum facility-wide TOSHI (neurological) for the source category
is estimated to be less than 1 (at 0.4), mainly driven by emissions of
lead compounds and hydrogen cyanide from open burning of rocket
propellant (an industrial solid waste disposal process) and by
trichloroethylene emissions from liquid waste (a general waste
treatment process). No people are exposed to noncancer HI levels above
1, based on facility-wide emissions from the 59 facilities in this
source category.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Engine Test Cells/Stands
source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Engine Test Cells/Stands Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine test cells/stands source category: Demographic assessment results--50 km study area radius
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
with cancer
risk greater Population
than or equal with HI
to 1 in 1 greater than 1
million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 317,746,049 2,745 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 90 0
Minority........................................................ 38 10 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................ 12 3 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 0.4 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 18 2 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 14 13 0
Above Poverty Level............................................. 86 87 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 14 9 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 86 91 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 2,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
Regarding cancer risk, the specific demographic results indicate that
the percentage of the population potentially impacted by engine test
cells/stands emissions is greater than its corresponding nationwide
percentage for the following demographics: Above Poverty Level (87
percent for the source category compared to 86 percent nationwide), and
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma (91 percent for the source
category compared to 86 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic
group percentages are the same or less than the corresponding
nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Engine Test Cells/
Stands Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this
action.
[[Page 20225]]
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from engine test cells/stands located at major sources of
HAP, and we considered these in determining acceptability.
The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed
to actual or allowable emissions from the source category is 70-in-1
million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures
is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 50
years. Approximately 190,000 people face an increased cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to actual or allowable
HAP emissions from this source category. The estimated maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure for this source category is
0.5. The screening assessment of worst-case inhalation impacts
indicates a worst-case maximum acute HQ of 9 for acrolein based on the
1-hour REL and concentrations that are only 30 percent of the 1-hour
AEGL-1 and ERPG-1.
Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a 3-
tier screening assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this
source category. The only pollutant with elevated Tier 1 and Tier 2
screening values was arsenic, which is a carcinogen. The Tier 2
screening value for arsenic was 2. For noncancer, the Tier 2 screening
values for all pollutants were less than 1.
In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk
estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate
that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the
individual most exposed are well below 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive limit of acceptability. In addition, the highest chronic
noncancer TOSHI is well below 1, indicating low likelihood of adverse
noncancer effects from inhalation exposures. The maximum acute HQ for
all pollutants is 9 based on the REL for acrolein. As discussed in
section III.C.3.c of this preamble, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. Because of the
conservative nature of the acute inhalation screening assessment
(concurrent maximum emissions from all emission points, worst-case
meteorology, and an exposed person at the location of highest
concentration for a full hour), there is low probability that the
maximum HQ of 9 is associated with adverse health effects. Further, the
highest 1-hour acrolein concentration is only 30 percent of the 1-hour
AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. There are also low risks associated with ingestion
via multipathway exposure, with the highest cancer risk being 2-in-1
million and the highest noncancer HI being less than 1, based on a Tier
2 multipathway assessment.
Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III of this
preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable for this
source category.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of
safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the
risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule
review to determine whether there are any emission reduction measures
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the
risks associated with these emissions.
Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any
risk reductions from further available control options would result in
minimal health benefits. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the
technology review in section IV.C of this preamble, no additional cost-
effective measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from
affected sources in the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category. Thus,
we are proposing that the current Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental
effect from the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category. We are
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
1. How did we evaluate technological developments?
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires a review of ``developments in
practices, processes and control technologies'' in each source category
as part of the technology review process. For this technology review,
the ``developments'' we consider include:
Add-on control technology that was not identified during
the current NESHAP development;
Improvement to an existing add-on control technology
resulting in significant additional HAP emissions reductions;
Work practice or operational procedure that was not
previously identified during the current NESHAP development; or
Process change or pollution prevention alternative that
was not identified and considered during the current NESHAP
development.
Developments in practices, processes, and control technologies were
investigated through discussions with industry representatives, reviews
of available construction and operating permits, searches of the EPA's
RBLC, site visits, and literature searches. We also included questions
on developments in practices, processes, and control technology in this
source category in the 2016 questionnaire that was completed by 10
companies. The questionnaire, along with the responses received, are
included in the docket.
2. What was our analysis and what are our conclusions regarding
technological developments?
Our review of the practices, processes, and control technology for
the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category did
[[Page 20226]]
not reveal any development that would result in revisions to the
emission standards. In the original NESHAP, the technology basis for
the MACT standard was the use of add-on capture systems and control
devices (i.e., thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers). Our review
did not identify any new or improved add-on control technology, any new
work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or new
pollution prevention approaches that reduce emissions in the category
that have been implemented at engine testing operations since
promulgation of the current NESHAP. Consequently, we propose that no
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). For a detailed discussion of the findings, refer to the
Technology Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category
memorandum in the docket.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications,
semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports). Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which appears at 40 CFR 63.9305, 40 CFR 63.9340, and in Table 7 to
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we
are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are
also proposing several revisions to Table 7 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example,
we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also
are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal
of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities
regulated under the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. Deviations
currently addressed by a facility's SSM plan are required to be
reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that
remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.9350). Facilities will no longer
need to develop an SSM plan or keep it current (Table 7, 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPP). We are specifically seeking comment on whether we
have successfully removed the SSM exemption.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, is not proposing alternate standards for those periods. For add-
on control systems, the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP requires the
measurement of thermal oxidizer operating temperature or catalytic
oxidizer average temperature across the catalyst bed as well as the
measurement of the emission capture system volumetric flow rate or
facial velocity. Operating limits apply at all times (40 CFR 63.9302),
including during periods of startup and shutdown. The Engine Test
Cells/Stands NESHAP requires thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer
operating temperature and other add-on control device operating
parameters to be recorded at least once every 15 minutes. The Engine
Test Cells/Stands NESHAP specifies in 40 CFR 63.9340(b) that if an
operating parameter is out of the allowed range, this is a deviation
from the operating limit and must be reported as specified in 40 CFR
63.9350(d). Review of permits of facilities using add-on controls
indicated that they were required by permit to operate the add-on
controls at all times the engine test cells are being operated.
In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.9302(a),
any new or reconstructed affected source for which you use add-on
control option must meet operating limits ``at all times.'' This means
that during startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility using
add-on controls to meet the emission and operating standards, the
control device for an engine test cell/stand facility needs to be
turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins
engine testing operations, and the control equipment needs to continue
to be operated until after the facility ceases engine testing
operations.
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 and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115,
1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance
[[Page 20227]]
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting 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. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, for example,
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 offline 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.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because information was available to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80
FR 75178, 75211-14; December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
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,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA (830 F.3d 579, 606-610; D.C.
Cir. 2016).
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 7)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)-(2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.9305 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 and SSM events in
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.9305 does not include that language from 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise Table 7 to add an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii)
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.9305.
We are also proposing to revise Table 7 to add an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a ``yes'' in column 3.
Finally, we are proposing to revise Table 7 to remove an entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) because this paragraph is reserved and is not
applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise Table 7 to add an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3) and include a ``no'' in column 3. Generally, these
paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
[[Page 20228]]
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.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1)
describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead
proposing to revise the performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.9321 to remove the language ``according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1)'' because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restated the SSM exemption. 40
CFR 63.9321(a) of the current rule specifies that performance testing
must be conducted when the emission capture system and add-on control
device are operating at a representative flow rate, and the add-on
control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration.
Section 63.9321(a) also specifies that the performance test be
conducted under representative operating conditions for the engine test
cell/stand. Operations during periods of SSM, and during periods of
nonoperation do not constitute representative operating conditions. The
EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to
record the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon
request but does not specifically require the information to be
recorded. The regulatory text in the current rule already makes
explicit the requirement to record the information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise Table 7 entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i)
and 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary considering 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)).
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the Table 7 entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 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 is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the Table 7 entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
a malfunction. A similar record is already required in 40 CFR
63.9350(c). The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.9350(c) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.9350(c) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.9350(c) 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 is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the Table 7 by adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 3. 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 63.9355(a).
We are proposing to revise Table 7 by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in column 3. 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.
We are proposing to revise Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(1)-
(6), (9)-(15) by re-designating it as 40 CFR 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(14)
and adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.9350.
The replacement language differs from the General Provisions
[[Page 20229]]
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone
report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to
meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information
concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already
required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must also
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 is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan because
plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of engine test cells/stands submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \28\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems (CMS) measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants
that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted
in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other
performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the semiannual compliance reports the proposed rule requires
that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template
for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\29\
The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and
overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See
Engine_Test_Cells_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft, available
at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons beyond their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of either the EPA's
CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the
system and submitting required reports is addressed in proposed 40 CFR
63.9350(i). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a
force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected
facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule
is addressed in proposed 40 CFR 63.9350(j). Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking, when finalized, will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data
availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of
public health and the environment, will improve compliance by
facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of
delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the
EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
the EPA's plan \30\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in
keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \31\ developed in response to
the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\32\ For more information
on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
[[Page 20230]]
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\31\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\32\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
The following are additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial correction:
Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.9307 to
add THC as a continuous emission monitoring option and to add
Performance Specification 8A and EPA Method 25A;
Revising the initial compliance requirements in 40 CFR
63.9320 to include a provision for the performance test to be used to
demonstrate compliance;
Revising Tables 3 and 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP,
to add alternative compliance option; and
Revising section 40 CFR 63.9350 to address the reporting
of performance tests and performance evaluations.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May
8, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the
amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the
final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected existing
facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, until the applicable compliance date of
the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), therefore, the effective date of
the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA
section 112(d)(10). For existing affected sources, we are proposing two
changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are
proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test
results, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted
electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for
SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the
standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop
and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that
have been required to convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary
hardware, install necessary software, become familiar with the process
of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably
employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting
processes to different time-reporting parameters, shows that a time
period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically 180 days, is
generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our
experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of
regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read
and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup
and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments;
adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate
revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are currently 59 engine test cells/stands facilities
operating in the United States that conduct engine testing operations
and are subject to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. The 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPP, affected source is the collection of all equipment
and activities associated with engine test cells/stands used for
testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines located at
a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source
is a completely new engine testing source that commenced construction
after May 14, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and
commenced reconstruction after May 14, 2002.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are
estimated to be approximately 163 tpy. This represents a reduction in
HAP emissions of about 80 tpy due to the current (2003) Engine Test
Cells/Stands NESHAP. The proposed amendments will require all affected
sources subject to the emission standards in the Engine Test Cells/
Stands NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We do not expect
that eliminating the SSM exemption will result in reduced emissions
since the NESHAP requires that the operating limits established during
the performance test for demonstrating continuous compliance must be
met at all times.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate that each facility in the source category will
experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule
amendments. Costs associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption
were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and
include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems.
Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit
notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for
semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs
are presented in section VIII.C of this preamble.
[[Page 20231]]
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a proposed rule.
Based on the costs associated with the elimination of the SSM
exemption and the costs associated with the requirement to
electronically submit compliance reports presented in section VIII.C of
this preamble, there are no significant economic impacts from these
proposed amendments
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not propose changes to the emission limit requirements
and estimates the proposed changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting,
and monitoring are not economically significant. Because these proposed
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were
estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.
We specifically solicit comment on an additional issue under
consideration that could reduce regulatory burden for owners or
operators of certain engine test cells/stands facilities. Currently, if
an affected source owner or operator elects to comply with the percent
reduction emission limitation, an initial performance test must be
conducted to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the
equipment and to establish the operating limits to be achieved on a
continuous basis. Performance tests are to be conducted under
representative operating conditions and the source is required to
document the operating conditions during the test and explain why the
conditions represent normal operation. Industry stakeholders have
raised the issue that, for facilities with multiple test cells/stands,
it is difficult to define ``normal'' operation due to the several types
of engine tests conducted, the varying operation conditions for the
engine tests, the number of cells/stands, different kinds of test
fuels, and the complex emission capture system. Thus, affected sources
have felt the need to request approval on the testing protocol prior to
conducting the performance tests to limit tests to representative
cells. We are requesting comment on whether this process of requesting
prior approval for determining what is considered ``normal'' operation
for a specific affected facility is reasonable and appropriate for the
one-time required performance test.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2066.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP in the form of
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance
test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are owners and operators
of engine test cells/stands facilities subject to the Engine Test
Cells/Standards NESHAP.
[[Page 20232]]
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPP).
Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years,
approximately 12 existing major sources will be subject to these
standards, of which seven are subject to emission limits, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. It is also estimated that
one additional respondent will become subject to the emission standards
over the 3-year period and two additional respondents will be subject
only to the notification requirements.
Frequency of response: The average number of respondents over the
3-year period of this ICR is eight.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
estimated to be 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The total capital/startup costs for this ICR
are $500. The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR
are $2,400. The average annual cost for capital/startup and O&M costs
to industry over the next 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $2,900.
These are the recordkeeping costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than June 7,
2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. During the original
rulemaking, an ICR was sent to over 100 companies representing over 300
individual facilities. Using that information, along with discussion
with industry stakeholders, it was determined that there were no major
sources that were also small businesses. Thus, this action will not
impose any requirements on small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The action
affects private industry and does not impose economic costs on state or
local governments.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any engine test cell/
stand facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA 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
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Engine Test
Cells/Stands Source Category Operations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Engine test cells/
stands, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 25, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed
to be amended 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 PPPPP--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.9295 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
and adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9295 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Affected sources. (1) If you start up your new or reconstructed
affected source before May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart no later than May 27, 2003;
[[Page 20233]]
except that the compliance date for the revised requirements
promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.9295, 63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355,
63.9375, and Table 7 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, published on
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] is [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
(2) If you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or
after May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission limitations in
this subpart upon startup; except that if the initial startup of your
new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 27, 2003, but on
or before May 8, 2019, the compliance date for the revised requirements
promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.9295, 63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355,
63.9375, and Table 7 of this subpart published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(3) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after May 8, 2019, the compliance date is [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.9305 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9305 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], You must be in compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to you at all times, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of your control device or
associated monitoring equipment. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with
the applicable emission limitation at all times.
(b) If you must comply with the emission limitation, you must
operate and maintain your engine test cell/stand, air pollution control
equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at
all times. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieve.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
affected source.
(c) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], You must develop a
written SSM plan (SSMP) for emission control devices and associated
monitoring equipment according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
The plan will apply only to emission control devices, and not to engine
test cells/stands.
0
4. Section 63.9307 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and
(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9307 What are my continuous emissions monitoring system
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(c) To comply with either emission limitations, the CEMS must be
installed and operated according to the requirements described in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to
the applicable Performance Specification (PS) of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B (PS- 3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to PS-3 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, using Reference Method 3A or 3B for the
O2 CEMS, and according to PS-4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B, using Reference Method 10 or 10B for the CO CEMS, and according to
PS-8 of CFR part 60, Appendix B, using Reference Method 25A for the THC
CEMS. If the fuel used in the engines being tested is natural gas, you
may use ASTM D 6522-00, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions
from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines,
Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14). As an alternative to Method 3B, you may
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus],'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14).
* * * * *
(4) All CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2)
and recorded as CO or THC as carbon concentration in parts per million
by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15 percent O2
content.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.9320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9320 What procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each
capture and control system according to Sec. Sec. 63.9321, 63.9322,
63.9323 and 63.9324, and each CEMS according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS- 3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
(c) The initial demonstration of compliance with the carbon
monoxide (CO) or total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration limitation
consists of either the first 4-hour rolling average CO or THC
concentration recorded after completion of the CEMS performance
evaluation if CEMS are installed or the average of the test run
averages during the initial performance test. You must correct the CO
or THC concentration at the outlet of the engine test cell/stand or the
emission control device to a dry basis and to 15 percent O2
content according to Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY19.005
Where:
Cc = concentration of CO or THC, corrected to 15 percent
oxygen, ppmvd
Cunc = total uncorrected concentration of CO or THC,
ppmvd
%O2d = concentration of oxygen measured in gas stream,
dry basis, percent by volume
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.9330 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.9330 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitation?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.9340 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.9340 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(c) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. (1) For affected sources
until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1),
deviations that occur during a period of
[[Page 20234]]
SSM of control devices and associated monitoring equipment are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec. 63.6(e)(1).
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period you identify as an SSM of control devices and
associated monitoring equipment are violations, according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
0
8. Section 63.9350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6) and;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(5);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
f. Adding paragraph (d)(11);
0
g. Revising paragraph (e);
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9350 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) * * *
(6) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register], if you had an SSM of a
control device or associated monitoring equipment during the reporting
period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance
report must include the information in paragraphs Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(7) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN Federal Register], submit all semiannual compliance reports
following the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) For each deviation from an emission limit, the semiannual
compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register] the
semiannual compliance report must also include the information included
in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) 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.
* * * * *
(d) For each CEMS or CPMS deviation, the semiannual compliance
report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section and the information included in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(10) of this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register] the semiannual
compliance report must also include the information included in
paragraph (d)(11) of this section.
* * * * *
(11) The total operating time of each new or reconstructed engine
test cell/stand during the reporting period.
* * * * *
(e) Until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], if you had an SSM of a control device or
associated monitoring equipment during the semiannual reporting period
that was not consistent with your SSMP, you must submit an immediate
SSM report according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test or performance evaluation required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants using test methods
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test.
Submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation to
the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants using test methods that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the test. The results of the performance test or
performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or
an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative
file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (f) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI),
submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to
the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
[[Page 20235]]
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
9. Section 63.9355 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9355 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section. After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN Federal Register], you must also keep the records as described in
paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in
Sec. 63.9355.
* * * * *
(6) 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 each failure.
(7) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources 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.
(8) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.9305, and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.9360 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows;
Sec. 63.9360 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
11. Section 63.9375 is amended by revising paragraph (3) under the
definition for ``Deviation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9375 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation * * *
* * * * *
(3) Until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation or operating
limit in this subpart during malfunction, regardless or whether or not
such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
0
12. Table 3 to subpart PPPPP is amended by revising the entry for ``1.
The CO or THC outlet concentration emission limitation'' to read as
follows:
Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Initial
Compliance Demonstrations
As stated in Sec. 63.9321, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:
[[Page 20236]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For each new or reconstructed You must . . . Using . . . following requirements
affected source complying with . . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The CO or THC outlet concentration a. Demonstrate CO or i. EPA Methods 3A and You must demonstrate
emission limitation. THC emissions are 20 10 of appendix A to 40 that the outlet
ppmvd or less. CFR part 60 for CO concentration of CO or
measurement or EPA THC emissions from the
Method 25A of appendix test cell/stand or
A to 40 CFR part 60 emission control
for THC measurement; device is 20 ppmvd or
or. less, corrected to 15
percent O2 content,
using the average of
the test runs in the
performance test.
ii. A CEMS for CO or This demonstration is
THC and O2 at the conducted immediately
outlet of the engine following a successful
test cell/stand or performance evaluation
emission control of the CEMS as
device. required in Sec.
63.9320(b). The
demonstration consists
of the first 4-hour
rolling average of
measurements. The CO
or THC concentration
must be corrected to
15 percent O2 content,
dry basis using
Equation 1 in Sec.
63.9320.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
13. Table 4 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations
As stated in Sec. 63.9330, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial
For the . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO or THC concentration The first 4-hour rolling average CO
emission limitation. or THC concentration is 20 ppmvd or
less, corrected to 15 percent O2
content if CEMS are installed or
the average of the test run
averages during the performance
test is 20 ppmvd or less, corrected
to 15 percent O2 content.
2. CO or THC percent reduction The first 4-hour rolling average
emission limitation. reduction in CO or THC is 96
percent or more, dry basis,
corrected to 15 percent O2 content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
14. Table 5 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Emission Limitations
As stated in Sec. 63.9340, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you according
to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the . . . You must . . . By . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO or THC concentration a. Demonstrate CO i. Collecting the
emission limitation. or THC emissions CPMS data
are 20 ppmvd or according to Sec.
less over each 4- 63.9306(a),
hour rolling reducing the
averaging period. measurements to 1-
hour averages
used to calculate
the 3-hr block
average; or
ii. Collecting the
CEMS data
according to Sec.
63.9307(a),
reducing the
measurements to 1-
hour averages,
correcting them
to 15 percent O2
content, dry
basis, according
to Sec.
63.9320.
2. CO or THC percent reduction a. Demonstrate a i. Collecting the
emission limitation. reduction in CO CPMS data
or THC of 96 according to Sec.
percent or more 63.9306(a),
over each 4-hour reducing the
rolling averaging measurements to 1-
period. hour averages; or
ii. Collecting the
CEMS data
according to Sec.
63.9307(b),
reducing the
measurements to 1-
hour averages,
correcting them
to 15 percent O2
content, dry
basis,
calculating the
CO or THC percent
reduction
according to Sec.
63.9320.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20237]]
0
15. Table 7 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart PPPPP
As stated in 63.9365, you must comply with the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 that apply to you according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
Citation Subject subpart PPPPP Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)- General Yes. ...............
(12). Applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3) Initial Yes............ Applicability
Applicability to subpart
Determination. PPPPP is also
specified in
Sec.
63.9285.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).... Applicability Yes. ...............
After Standard
Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).... Applicability No............. Area sources
of Permit are not
Program for subject to
Area Sources. subpart PPPPP.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).... Notifications.. Yes. ...............
Sec. 63.1(d)....... [Reserved].....
Sec. 63.1(e)....... Applicability Yes. ...............
of Permit
Program Before
Relevant
Standard is
Set.
Sec. 63.2.......... Definitions.... Yes............ Additional
definitions
are specified
in Sec.
63.9375.
Sec. 63.3.......... Units and Yes. ...............
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4.......... Prohibited Yes. ...............
Activities and
Circumvention.
Sec. 63.5(a)....... Construction/ Yes. ...............
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)....... Requirements Yes. ...............
for Existing,
Newly
Constructed,
and
Reconstruction
Sources.
Sec. 63.5(d)....... Application for Yes. ...............
Approval of
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)....... Approval of Yes. ...............
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)....... Approval of Yes. ...............
Construction/
Reconstruction
based on Prior
State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)....... Compliance With Yes. ...............
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements--
Applicability.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7) Compliance Yes............ Sec. 63.9295
Dates for New specifies the
and compliance
Reconstructed dates.
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2) Compliance No............. Subpart PPPPP
Dates for does not
Existing establish
Sources. standards for
existing
sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).... Compliance Yes............ Sec.
Dates for 63.9295(b)
Existing specifies the
Sources. compliance
date if a new
or
reconstructed
area source
becomes a
major source.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). Operation and No............. See Sec.
Maintenance. 63.9305 for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation and No. ...............
Maintenance.
Sec. Operation and Yes. ...............
63.6(e)(1)(iii). Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).... SSM Plan....... No. ...............
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).... Compliance No. ...............
Except During
Startup,
Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for Yes. ...............
Determining
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3) Use of Yes. ...............
Alternative
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(h)....... Compliance With No............. Subpart PPPPP
Opacity/ does not
Visible establish
Emission opacity
Standards. standards and
does require
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems
(COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)- Extension of No............. Compliance
(16). Compliance. extension
provisions
apply to
existing
sources which
do not have
emission
limitations in
subpart PPPPP.
Sec. 63.6(j)....... Presidential Yes. ...............
Compliance
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2) Performance Yes. ...............
Test Dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).... Performance Yes. ...............
Test Required
By the
Administrator.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)... Performance Yes. ...............
Test
Requirements-
Notification,
Quality
Assurance,
Facilities
Necessary for
Safe Testing,
Conditions
During Testing.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).... Conditions for No. ...............
Conducting
Performance
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4) Conduct of Yes. ...............
Performance
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)....... Alternative Yes. ...............
Test Methods.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)... Performance Yes. ...............
Testing
Requirements--
Data Analysis,
Recordkeeping,
Reporting,
Waiver of Test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2) Monitoring Yes............ Subpart PPPPP
Requirements-- contains
Applicability. specific
requirement
for monitoring
at Sec.
63.9325.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).... Additional No............. Subpart PPPPP
Monitoring does not have
Requirements. monitoring
requirement
for flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)....... Conduct of Yes. ...............
Monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).... Continuous Yes. ...............
Monitoring
System (CMS)
Operation and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i). General Duty to No. ...............
Minimize
Emissions and
CMS Operation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii) Operation and Yes. ...............
Maintenance of
CMS.
Sec. Requirement to No. ...............
63.8(c)(1)(iii). Develop SSM
Plan for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring Yes. ...............
System
Installation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).... CMS............ No............. Sec.
63.9335(a) and
(b) specifies
the
requirements
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).... COMS........... No............. Subpart PPPPP
does not have
opacity or VE
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8) CMS Yes............ Except that
Requirements. subpart PPPPP
does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)... CMS Quality Yes............ Except for Sec.
Control and
CMS 63.8(e)(5)(ii)
Performance. which applies
to COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5) Alternative Yes. ...............
Monitoring
Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).... Alternative to Yes. ...............
Relative
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.8(g)....... Data Reduction. No............. Sec. Sec.
63.9335 and
63.9340
specify
monitoring
data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(b)... Notification Yes. ...............
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(c)....... Request for No............. Compliance
Compliance extension to
Extension. not apply to
new or
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.9(d)....... Notification of Yes. ...............
Special
Compliance
Requirements
for New
Sources.
Sec. 63.9(e)....... Notification of No............. Subpart PPPPP
Performance does not
Test. require
performance
testing.
Sec. 63.9(f)....... Notification of No............. Subpart PPPPP
Opacity/VE does not have
Test. opacity/VE
standards.
[[Page 20238]]
Sec. 63.9(g)(1).... Additional Yes. ...............
Notifications
When Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2).... Additional No............. Subpart PPPPP
Notifications does not have
When Using CMS. opacity/VE
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3).... Additional Yes. ...............
Notifications
When Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)....... Notification of Yes. ...............
Compliance
Status.
Sec. 63.9(i)....... Adjustment of Yes. ...............
Submittal
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)....... Change in Yes. ...............
Previous
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)...... Recordkeeping/ Yes. ...............
Reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)... General Yes. ...............
Recordkeeping
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i) Recordkeeping No. ...............
of Occurrence
and Duration
of Startups
and Shutdowns.
Sec. Recordkeeping No............. See Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(ii). of Occurrence 63.9355 for
and Duration recordkeeping
of of (1) date,
Malfunctions. time and
duration; (2)
listing of
affected
source or
equipment, and
an estimate of
the quantity
of each
regulated
pollutant
emitted over
the standard;
and (3)
actions to
minimize
emissions and
correct the
failure.
Sec. Recordkeeping Yes. ...............
63.10(b)(2)(iii). of Maintenance
on Controls
and Monitoring
Equipment.
Sec. Actions Taken No. ...............
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v). to Minimize
Emissions
During SSM.
Sec. CMS Records.... Yes. ...............
63.10(b)(2)((vi)-(xi
).
Sec. Records........ Yes. ...............
63.10(b)(2)(xii).
Sec. Records........ Yes. ...............
63.10(b)(2)(xiii).
Sec. Records........ Yes. ...............
63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)... Recordkeeping Yes. ...............
for
Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)- Additional Yes. ...............
(6), (9)-(14). Recordkeeping
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)- Records of No............. Specific
(8). Excess language is
Emissions and located at
Parameter Sec. 63.9355
Monitoring of subpart
Exceedances PPPPP.
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).. Records No. ...............
Regarding the
SSM Plan.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)... General Yes. ...............
Reporting
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)... Report of Yes. ...............
Performance
Test Results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)... Reporting of No............. Subpart PPPPP
Opacity or VE does not have
Observations. opacity/VE
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)... Progress No............. Compliance
Reports for extensions do
Sources with not apply to
Compliance new or
Extensions. reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)... SSM Reports.... No. See Sec. ...............
63.9350 for
malfunction
reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) Additional CMS Yes. ...............
and (2)(i). Reports.
Sec. Additional CMS No............. Subpart PPPPP
63.10(e)(2)(ii). Reports. does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)... Excess No............. Specific
Emissions/CMS language is
Performance located in
Reports. Sec. 63.9350
of subpart
PPPPP.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)... COMS Data No............. Subpart PPPPP
Reports. does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)...... Waiver for Yes. ...............
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11......... Control Device No............. Subpart PPPPP
Requirements/ does not
Flares. specify use of
flares for
compliance.
Sec. 63.12......... State Authority Yes. ...............
and
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13......... Addresses...... Yes. ...............
Sec. 63.14......... Incorporation Yes............ ASTM D 6522-00
by Reference. and ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated
by reference-
See Sec.
63.14).
Sec. 63.15......... Availability of Yes. ...............
Information/
Confidentialit
y.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-09119 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P